PARHIZGAR
v.
MANNING
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant's motion to transfer venue to the Ocala Division should be granted because the county with the greatest nexus to the dispute is Marion County.
Plaintiffs, owners and a lienholder of racehorses, sued the defendant horse trainer. The dispute involves allegations of fraud, unjust enrichment, and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Transfer Of Venue cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon careful and due consideration of Defendant’s motion to transfer this case to the Ocala Division of the Middle District of Florida (Dkt. 16), the Court finds the motion should be granted. The county within the Middle District with the “greatest nexus . . . giving due regard to the place where the claim arose and the residence or principal place of business of the parties” is Marion. See Local Rule 1.02(e), M.D. Fla. This case involves a dispute between the Plaintiffs as owner of several thoroughbred racehorses, together with the lender-lienholder, and the Defendant as horse trainer.1 Both Plaintiffs are domiciled in Texas, and the Defendant lives in
Three counts of the complaint seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and four counts seek damages based on unjust enrichment, fraud, and conversion of six horses as well as proceeds from winnings and/or sales of all 13 horses named in the complaint. The allegations assert, as to 12 horses, Defendant-trainer without permission or authority entered them in races at Tampa Bay Downs and Gulfstream Park (not located in the Middle District), and either sold or gave some of them away, keeping the proceeds from the sales and the winnings. To carry out this plan, Defendant allegedly obtained ownership by tricking Plaintiff Parhizgar to sign bills of sale as seller of the 12 horses on all but three bills. Dkt. 1-2. The bills of sale identify Defendant as buyer and the consideration for the sale as “training bill owed.” Id. They were executed by Defendant in Marion County before a notary public. Id. Plaintiff Parhizgar maintains he is the rightful owner of the 12 horses. 4
Holdings, LLC, No. 8:06-cv-367-T-26TGW, 2006 WL 563116 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2006) (transferring case under Local Rule 1.02(e) and finding that even though plaintiff resided in Tampa Division, defendants were out-of-state and most of franchises at issue were concentrated in Orlando Division). Neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendant are domiciled or reside in the Tampa Division. Defendant resides in Marion County, and the alleged fraudulent bills of sale were executed by Defendant there. According to the complaint, two of the alleged converted horses were entered in races in Hillsborough County (“KP Creed” and “Drillomatic”) and three in the Southern District (“Sir Seamus,” “Smoke Alarm” and “Allgorilla”).5 It is unclear, however, whether the conversions took place at the race tracks or at the stables in Levy County or somewhere else. Because the allegations of fraud or trickery permeate the entire complaint and the fraud allegedly occurred in Marion County, the circumstances weigh heavily in favor of transfer to the Ocala Division. Accordingly, the motion to transfer pursuant to Local Rule 1.02(e) (Dkt. 16) is granted. The Clerk shall transfer this case to the Ocala Division of the Middle in the Middle District or that any of the facts surrounding the conversion of this horse occurred in the Middle District.
WILLIAM F. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Defendant, pro se