Albert Fadem Trust v. Duke Energy Corp.
| Citation | 214 F.Supp.2d 341 |
| Decision Date | 29 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 02 Civ. 5529(JSR).,No. 02 Civ. 4514(JSR).,No. 02 Civ. 5197(JSR).,No. 02 Civ. 5055(JSR).,No. 02 Civ. 4916(JSR).,No. 02 Civ. 3960(JSR).,No. 02 Civ. 5711(JSR).,No. 02 Civ. 4340(JSR).,No. 02 Civ. 4949(JSR).,No. 02 Civ. 4084(JSR).,No. 02 Civ. 5023(JSR).,No. 02 Civ. 4693(JSR).,02 Civ. 3960(JSR).,02 Civ. 4084(JSR).,02 Civ. 4340(JSR).,02 Civ. 4514(JSR).,02 Civ. 4693(JSR).,02 Civ. 4916(JSR).,02 Civ. 4949(JSR).,02 Civ. 5023(JSR).,02 Civ. 5055(JSR).,02 Civ. 5197(JSR).,02 Civ. 5529(JSR).,02 Civ. 5711(JSR). |
| Parties | The ALBERT FADEM TRUST, Plaintiff, v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION, Richard Priory, Robert Brace, William Coley, Fred Fowler, Harvey Padewer and Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Defendants. Wickerware, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation, Richard Priory, Robert Brace, David Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, and Richard J. Osborne, Defendants. Barry Family, LP, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation, Richard Priory, Robert Brace, David Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, and Richard J. Osborne, Defendants. Donald Goldstein, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation, Richard Priory, Robert Brace, David Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, and Richard J. Osborne, Defendants. David L. Boushey, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation, Richard Priory, Robert Brace, David Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, and Richard J. Osborne, Defendants. Margie Elstein, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation, Richard Priory, Robert Brace, David Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, and Richard J. Osborne, Defendants. Sandra Finkel, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation, Richard Priory, Robert Brace, David Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, and Richard J. Osborne, Defendants. J.B. Pozner Trust, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation, Richard Priory, Robert Brace, David Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, and Richard J. Osborne, Defendants. Alan Kushner, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation, Richard Priory, Robert Brace, David Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, and Richard J. Osborne, Defendants. Henry Willet, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation, Richard Priory, Robert Brace, David Hauser, Keith G. Butler, Sandra P. Meyer, Jeffrey L. Boyer, and Richard J. Osborne, Defendants. Elliot S. Honig, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation, Richard Priory, Robert Brace, William Coley, Fred Fowler, Harvey Padewer, and Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Defendants. Mikel Kinser and Franklin and Lucille Richardson, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Corporation, Robert Brace, William Coley, Fred Fowler, Harvey Padewer, Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Banc of America Securities, LLC, Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., Goldman Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and UBS Warburg, LLC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Victor Stewart, Christopher Lovell, Christopher J. Gray, Lovell & Stewart, LLP, New York City, for Albert Fadem Trust.
David Rosenfeld, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, New York City, Michael Yarnoff, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Bala Cynwyd, PA, for Wickerware, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan.
Nancy Kaboolian, Abbey Gardy, LLP, New York City, for Barry Family and Henry Willet.
David Goldsmith, Goodkind, Labaton, Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP, New York City, for Donald Goldstein.
David Rosenfeld, Steven G. Schulman, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP, New York City, for David L. Boushey.
Eric Belfi, Brian Philip Murray, Rabin & Peckel, LLP, New York City, for Sandra Finkel.
Fred Taylor Isquith, Wolf, Hardstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP, New York City, for J.B. Pozner Trust.
Mel Lifshitz, Berstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, New York City, for Elliot Honig.
Christopher Lovell, Christopher J. Gray, Lovell & Stewart, LLP, New York City, for Mikel Kinser.
Howard Schiffman, Dickstein, Shapiro, Morin & Oshinsky, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
Michael P. Carroll, Amelia T.R. Starr, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, New York City, for Deloitte & Touche.
As of July 26, 2002, no fewer than twelve federal securities actions have been filed in the Southern District of New York (and consolidated before this Court) against Duke Energy Corporation (a North Carolina corporation with its principal place of business in Charlotte), several of its officers and directors, its outside auditors Deloitte & Touche, LLP, and certain underwriters of recent offerings of Duke Energy's securities. Defendants move to transfer all cases filed in the Southern District of New York to the Western District of North Carolina, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides that a district court may transfer any civil action, "for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice," to any other federal district where it might have been brought. For the following reasons, the Court hereby denies defendants' motion.
In exercising its broad discretion under § 1404, see In re Nematron Corp. Sec. Litg., 30 F.Supp.2d 397, 399 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), courts commonly consider such factors as (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the convenience of witnesses, (3) the location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the convenience of parties, (5) the locus of operative facts, (6) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, (7) the relative means of the parties, (8) the forum's familiarity with the governing law, and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances. See Pilates v. Pilates Institute, 891 F.Supp. 175, 183 (S.D.N.Y.1995); see also Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 11 F.Supp.2d 729, 730 (S.D.N.Y. 1998). These factors do not comprise an exclusive list, nor are they to be applied in a mechanical or formulaic manner. Rather, they, and any other factors peculiar to the particular case in question, serve as guideposts to the Court's informed exercise of discretion.
Because, however, that discretion must be exercised at the very outset of the case, when relatively little is known about how the case will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. Miller
...means of the parties.’ ” D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106–07 (2d Cir.2006) (quoting Albert Fadem Trust v. Duke Energy Corp., 214 F.Supp.2d 341, 343 (S.D.N.Y.2002)). The plaintiffs' choice of forum is given great weight, id. at 107, and defendants must make “ ‘a strong case f......
-
Mak Marketing, Inc. v. Kalapos
...means of the parties.'" D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106-107 (2d Cir.2006) (citing Albert Fadem Trust v. Duke Energy Corp., 214 F.Supp.2d 341, 343 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). Moreover, in the context of a section 1404(a) analysis, a "forum-selection clause, which represents the partie......
-
Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Project Playlist, Inc.
...courts have typically accorded substantial weight to the [eighth] factor, plaintiff's choice of forum." Albert Fadem Trust v. Duke Energy Corp., 214 F.Supp.2d 341, 343 (S.D.N.Y.2002). The burden rests on the moving party to make a "clear and convincing" showing that transfer under Section 1......
-
Amberslie v. Prisoner Transp. Serv. of Am., LLC
...Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2006) (alteration in original) (quoting Albert Fadem Trust v. Duke EnergyCorp., 214 F. Supp. 2d 341, 343 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)); see also N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010); Wagner v. ......