Prompt Nursing Emp't Agency LLC v. Valdez

• Decision Date: 02 December 2016
• Docket Number: 16–cv–2053 (ADS) (AYS)
• Citation: 222 F.Supp.3d 194
• Parties: PROMPT NURSING EMPLOYMENT AGENCY LLC, Plaintiff, v. Jericson B. VALDEZ, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

222 F.Supp.3d 194

PROMPT NURSING EMPLOYMENT AGENCY LLC, Plaintiff,

v.Jericson B. VALDEZ, Defendant.

16–cv–2053 (ADS) (AYS)

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Signed December 2, 2016

Filed December 5, 2016

Law Office of Seth Eisenberger, Co–Counsel for the Plaintiff, 969 East 27th Street, Brooklyn, NY 11210, By: Seth Eisenberger, Esq., Of Counsel

Newman Law, P.C., Co–Counsel for the Plaintiff, 292 Madison Avenue, 377 Pearsall Avenue, Suite C, Cedarhurst, NY 11516, By: Evan M. Newman, Esq., Aviva Francis, Esq., Of Counsel

Law Offices of John Howley, Attorney for the Defendant, 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor, New York, NY 10118, By: John J.P. Howley, Esq., Of Counsel

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER

ARTHUR D. SPATT, United States District Judge

This action arises out of allegations by the Plaintiff Prompt Nursing Employment Agency LLC (the "Plaintiff") that the Defendant Jericson B. Valdez (the "Defendant") breached a contract between them, and tortiously interfered with the Plaintiff's business opportunities and its contracts with other nurses. The Defendant now moves for a change of venue to the Brooklyn courthouse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (" Section 1404"), and to amend her answer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (" FED. R. CIV. P. " or "Rule(s)") 15. For the following reasons, the Defendant's motion for a change of venue is denied, and her motion to amend is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Relevant Procedural and Factual Background

The Plaintiff initiated this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, on March 22, 2016. The Plaintiff alleged three causes of action sounding in breach of contract, tortious interference with business opportunities, and tortious interference with the Plaintiff's contracts with other employees. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant breached the term employment contract at issue by terminating her employment without notice and by refusing to provide services to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant tortiously interfered with its contracts with other employees and its business opportunities by encouraging other nurses to breach their agreements with the Plaintiff and to refuse to provide services to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's complaint does not provide the details of its employment contract with the Defendant, merely that it was a three-year term employment contract.

On April 26, 2016 the Defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York based on diversity jurisdiction, and it was assigned to this Court in the Central Islip Courthouse.

The Defendant filed an answer on May 2, 2016 and amended her answer as a matter of right on May 23, 2016.

On July 29, 2016, the Defendant filed a letter motion to transfer venue to Brooklyn. The Court denied it without prejudice, directing the Defendant to refile it as a formal motion.

On August 1, 2016, the Defendant filed a motion to amend her answer once again, and on August 9, 2016, renewed her motion for a change of venue as a formal motion. The Defendant's proposed second amended answer seeks to add a counterclaim for breach of contract; eliminate her affirmative defenses of insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction; and modify her answer regarding the Plaintiff's principal place of business.

II. DISCUSSION

A. As to the Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue to Brooklyn

The Defendant argues that the case should be transferred to the Brooklyn courthouse because the Plaintiff's claims arise out of the Defendant's employment at a nursing home in Brooklyn; the Plaintiff's article of organization show that its principal office is in Kings County; and the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice dictate that the case be transferred. The Plaintiff argues that it chose the venue; that the factors favor keeping the case in Long Island; and that if the case were to be transferred to Brooklyn, any burden imposed on the parties by traveling would shift to the Plaintiff. The Court finds that the factors do not favor a transfer, and therefore declines to exercise its discretion to transfer venue to Brooklyn.

The Defendant moves to transfer this matter to the Brooklyn Courthouse pursuant to the venue transfer statute, Section 1404. Where, as here, the forum chosen is proper, Section 1404 allows for transfer to any "district or division" where the action might have been brought. Such transfer is allowed "for the convenience of the witnesses or parties and in the interests of justice". 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The burden on such a motion is on the party seeking transfer. Longo v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 79 F.Supp.2d 169, 170–71 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). The Defendant does not seek to transfer the case to another district court, but to the Brooklyn courthouse of the Eastern District of New York. While both the Brooklyn and Central Islip courthouses can properly exercise jurisdiction over any matter properly pending within the Eastern District, the Judges of the Court have adopted rules for the internal management of the Court's case load. Those rules, known as the "Guidelines for the Division of Business" (the "Guidelines"), allow for the designation of certain cases as "Long Island Cases." Guidelines Rule 50.1(d). According to the Guidelines, a civil case is properly designated as a Long Island Case if "the case has been removed to this Court from a New York State court located in Nassau or Suffolk County, or ... the cause arose wholly or in substantial part in Nassau or Suffolk County." Guidelines Rule 50.1(d)(2). The Guidelines allow a party to move to designate a case as a Long Island Case, or to cancel such designation, on the grounds that "such action will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or is otherwise in the interests of justice." Guidelines Rule 50.1(d)(3). Although the Defendant moved under the venue transfer statute, the Court views the Guidelines as instructive.

When considering whether the discretion to transfer should be exercised, the court considers first whether venue is proper in the proposed transferee district. Longo , 79 F.Supp.2d at 171 ; Laumann Mfg. Corp. v. Castings USA, Inc., 913 F.Supp. 712, 720 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) ; see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (allowing for transfer to any district where the action "might have been brought"). If the proposed venue is proper, as it is here, the court then considers whether transfer will serve the convenience of witnesses and parties and is in the interest of justice.

To make this latter determination, the court looks to several factors, including: (1) convenience of witnesses; (2) convenience of parties; (3) locus of operative facts; (4) availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (5) location of relevant documents and other sources of proof; (6) relative means of the parties; (7) relative familiarity of the forum with the governing law; (8) weight accorded to the plaintiff's choice of forum and (9) the interests of justice. See, e.g., Blass v. Capital Int'l Security Grp., No. 99-cv-5738, 2001 WL 301137, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. March 23, 2001) ; Longo, 79 F.Supp.2d at 171.

While the Court is mindful that Section 1404(a) protects litigants from needless inconvenience and costs, Castaneira v. Gannon, No. 99-cv-4236, 1999 WL 1487630, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 1999), a plaintiff's choice of forum must be given deference and transfer should be ordered only if the balance of conveniences weighs strongly in favor of the change of forum. See Mazuma Holding Corp. v. Bethke , 1 F.Supp.3d 6, 29 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (Spatt, J.) ("The plaintiff's choice of forum is generally entitled to deference, unless the forum chosen is not the plaintiff's home forum.") (quoting ESPN, Inc. v. Quiksilver, Inc. , 581 F.Supp.2d 542, 551 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ); Innovations Enter. Ltd. v. Haas–Jordan Co., No. 99-cv-1681, 2000 WL 263745, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2000) ; R. Siskind & Co., Inc. v. Ashworth, Inc. , No. 95–cv–7707, 1996 WL 167722, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 1996). Where transfer would merely shift the inconvenience from one party to the other, a plaintiff's choice of forum is not to be disturbed. Innovations Enter., 2000 WL 263745 at *2.

The Court notes that the Guidelines provide that motions such as the one presently before the Court are to be made within the time to answer the complaint. That time has passed. However, even if the Court were to consider this motion as timely, it would be denied nonetheless. See , e.g. , United States v. All Funds on Deposit in Bus. Mkt. Account No. 028–0942059–66 , 319 F.Supp.2d 290, 293–94 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) ; Cool Wind Ventilation Corp. v. Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n, Local Union No. 28 , 216 F.Supp.2d 81, 85 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)

The Court does not find that transfer would serve the convenience of witnesses or that it would be in the interest of justice. The Defendant does not reside in New York State. Although the Defendant has supplied the Court with the Plaintiff's Articles of Organization, which states that the Plaintiff's principal office is in Kings County, the Plaintiff has represented that its principal place of business is in Nassau County. The Court will accept the Plaintiff's representation, and notes that the Supreme Court has held that a corporation's principal place of business is its nerve center. Hertz Corp. v. Friend , 559 U.S. 77, 97, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1195, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010). Therefore, the fact that the Plaintiff organized in Kings County and stated that its principal office was in that county does not foreclose the possibility that its principal place of business is in Nassau County. Of the nine witnesses named by the parties, only one lives in Kings County. Two live outside of New York State, and it is unclear where the remaining witnesses reside. Although the Plaintiff's lead attorney has an office in Brooklyn, co-counsel for the Plaintiff is based in Nassau County. The Plaintiff brought this action in Nassau...