Dana Brigham v. Patla, Straus, Robinson
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00069-MR-DLH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999988401]. Mailed to: Patricia M. Brigham 8041 Bridgeport Bay Circle Mt. Dora, FL 32757 Dana P. Brigham 8041 Bridgeport Bay Circle Mt. Dora, FL 32757. [16-1305]
Appeal: 16-1305
Doc: 15
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1305
DANA P. BRIGHAM; PATRICIA M. BRIGHAM,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
PATLA, STRAUS, ROBINSON & MOORE, P.A., a North Carolina
Professional Association; STEVEN I. GOLDSTEIN, Individually
and as Shareholder and/or Partner in and to Patla, Straus,
Robinson & Moore, P.A.; ROBERT A. FREEMAN, III, Individually
and as Shareholder and/or Partner in and to Patla, Straus,
Robinson & Moore, P.A.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00069-MR-DLH)
Submitted:
December 7, 2016
Decided:
December 16, 2016
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dana P. Brigham, Patricia M. Brigham, Appellants Pro Se.
E.
Fitzgerald Parnell, III, Cynthia L. Van Horne, POYNER SPRUILL,
LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-1305
Doc: 15
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Dana P. and Patricia M. Brigham sued the North Carolina law
firm
of
Patla,
Straus,
Robinson
&
Moore
and
its
attorneys,
Steven I. Goldstein and Robert A. Freeman, in the United States
District
Court
for
the
Middle
District
of
Florida
malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.
district
court
transferred
the
case
to
the
for
legal
The Florida
United
States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina after
finding
that
the
Florida
district
court
lacked
jurisdiction over the North Carolina defendants.
personal
The defendants
then moved to dismiss the action, and the Brighams moved to
retransfer the case to the Florida district court.
Carolina
district
court,
adopting
the
The North
recommendation
of
the
magistrate judge, refused to retransfer the case and granted the
defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The Brighams appealed, arguing that their amended complaint
established
that
the
Florida
district
court
had
personal
jurisdiction over the North Carolina defendants, and therefore,
that this court should reverse the district court’s rulings and
retransfer the case to the Florida district court.
Finding no
error, we affirm.
We
review
a
district
court’s
order
denying
transfer
venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for abuse of discretion.
2
of
See
Appeal: 16-1305
Doc: 15
Filed: 12/16/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th
Cir. 1991).
Although we do not have jurisdiction to review the
Florida district court’s order to transfer the action to the
North Carolina district court, we do have authority to review
the North Carolina district court’s refusal to transfer the case
back to Florida.
transfer
a
See id.
civil
Under § 1404(a), a district court may
action
to
any
other
district
for
the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of
justice.
We
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
conclude
that
the
district
court
did
not
abuse
its
discretion in denying retransfer to the Florida district court
because neither convenience nor the interests of justice justify
retransfer.
Moreover, the Brighams’ attempts to argue that the
Florida district court had personal jurisdiction over the North
Carolina Defendants impermissibly ask this court to review the
Florida district court’s order.
Having
motion
for
court’s
found
proper
retransfer
dismissal
of
of
the
the
See Brock, 933 F.2d at 1257.
district
venue,
we
Brighams’
court’s
also
denial
affirm
amended
the
of
the
district
complaint.
Our
review of the district court’s order confirms that the amended
complaint asserted time-barred claims.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
3
the
facts
and
We
legal
Appeal: 16-1305
Doc: 15
contentions
are
Filed: 12/16/2016
adequately
Pg: 4 of 4
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?