Clark v. Tucker et al

Filing 37

ORDER: Defendants Michael D. Crews and Wilbur Bala, M.D.'s Amended Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 28) is granted to the extent that this action shall be transferred to the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. The Clerk of Court is directed to effectuate this transfer. The Clerk of Court is also directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions as moot. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 2/20/2014. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

LISA E. CLARK, as Personal Representative
for the Estate of Aaron L. Clark, Jr. ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:13-cv-2642-T-30MAP

MICHAEL D. CREWS, as Secretary of the
Florida Department of Corrections;
WILBUR BALA, M.D.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants Michael D. Crews and Wilbur
Bala, M.D.’s Amended Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 28) and Plaintiff’s Response in
Opposition (Dkt. 36). The Court, having reviewed the motion, response, and being otherwise
advised in the premises, concludes that the motion should be granted and this action should
be transferred to the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville
Division, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
BACKGROUND
This case arises from the death of Aaron L. Clark, Jr. while he was a prisoner at the
Lawtey Correctional Institution (“LCI”), located in Bradford County, Florida, and in the
custody of the Florida Department of Corrections (“FDOC”). Plaintiff Lisa E. Clark, as the
personal representative for the Estate of Aaron L. Clark, Jr., filed the instant action. The

amended complaint alleges that, while incarcerated, Clark received negligent and deliberately
indifferent medical care that ultimately caused his death.1
On January 8, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motions
to dismiss (Dkt. 21). Plaintiff’s remaining claims are: a medical negligence claim against
Defendant FDOC (Count I) and a section 1983 claim for deliberate indifference of Clark’s
medical needs against Defendant Wilbur Bala, M.D. (Count II).
Defendants FDOC and Dr. Bala now move the Court to transfer this action to the
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, under 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The Court concludes that Defendants have established that transfer of this case is
appropriate for the convenience of the parties based on the factors discussed below.
DISCUSSION
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses,
in the interests of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or
division where it might have been brought”. Plaintiff does not dispute that this case could
have been filed in the Middle District of Florida Jacksonville Division. Thus, the Court’s
only determination is whether, out of convenience to the parties and in the interests of justice,
this action should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida Jacksonville Division.

1

A detailed recitation of the facts is contained within the Court’s January 8, 2014 Order on
Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Dkt. 21).
Page 2 of 6

The Eleventh Circuit has outlined a number of factors for the Court to consider in
deciding whether to transfer a case. These factors include: (1) the convenience of the
witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources
of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5) the
availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means
of the parties; (7) a forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a
plaintiff’s choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the
totality of the circumstances. See Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 n. 1
(11th Cir. 2005). The Court addresses each factor in turn.
A.

The Convenience of the Witnesses
The convenience of the forum for witnesses is generally considered the single most

important factor in the analysis of whether a transfer should be granted. See Gonzalez v.
Pirelli Tire, LLC, No. 07-80453-CIV, 2008 WL 516847, at *2-3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2008).
Defendants point out that, with the exception of Dr. Bala’s part-time secondary residence in
Polk County, none of the parties reside in or near the Tampa Division of the Middle District
of Florida. In addition, the allegations relate to the medically and deliberately indifferent
care Clark received at LCI, which is located in Bradford County, within the Jacksonville
Division. Defendants also point out that material witnesses, like nurse Roberta A. Esposito
and nurse Reina M. Thomas (who were originally named in the complaint), are located in
Bradford County. It is also axiomatic that FDOC’s employees, guards, and medical staff

Page 3 of 6

with relevant information are also located in Bradford County. The prisoners on Clark’s cell
block are also located in Bradford County.
Notably, Plaintiff and Clark’s survivors are located in South Florida, which is within
the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiff does not identify any witnesses located in the
Tampa Division. Thus, this factor weighs greatly in favor of transfer.
B.

Location of Documents and Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
With respect to the location of documentary evidence, Defendants argue that almost

all of the relevant documents in this matter are located within the Jacksonville Division,
where LCI is located. Defendants point out that Plaintiff’s initial Rule 26 discovery
disclosures identify material documents that are located at LCI or at other healthcare
providers located in Jacksonville. In addition, Dr. Bala, Nurse Esposito, and Nurse Thomas’
affidavits confirm that the relevant medical records and other records related to Clark’s
medical treatment are located at LCI.
In contrast, none of the material documents that Plaintiff listed appear to be located
within the Tampa Division. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
C.

The Convenience and Relative Means of the Parties
Defendants contend that neither Plaintiff, nor Plaintiff’s counsel, is located within the

Tampa Division. In contrast, it would be highly inconvenient for Defendants, including
FDOC’s employees and agents, to travel to Tampa for the trial.

Page 4 of 6

Although Plaintiff’s financial means may be less than Defendants’ financial means,
Plaintiff would likely travel to Jacksonville in order to attend the depositions of FDOC’s
employees and other material witnesses located in Bradford County.
In sum, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
D.

The Locus of Operative Facts
A review of the amended complaint makes it clear that the salient events occurred

within the Jacksonville Division. Also, none of the allegations occurred within the Tampa
Division. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
E.

The Availability of Process to Compel the Attendance of Witnesses
This factor weighs in favor of transfer. Individuals in Bradford County cannot be

subpoenaed to testify at the trial in this action because they live more than 100 miles from
this Court.
F.

The Forum’s Familiarity with the Law
This factor is not relevant to the Court’s analysis because Florida and Federal law

apply to this action.
G.

The Weight Accorded to a Plaintiff's Choice of Forum
Generally speaking, “[t]he plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be disturbed unless

it is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74
F.3d 253, 260 (11th Cir. 1996). But where, as here, “the operative facts underlying the cause
of action did not occur within the forum chosen by the Plaintiff, the choice of forum is
entitled to less consideration.” Social Language Processing, Inc. v. OTT, No. 12-62286-CIV,
Page 5 of 6

2013 WL 1442168, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 9, 2013) (citations omitted). Thus, this factor is
mostly neutral.
H.

Trial Efficiency and the Interests of Justice
For all the reasons discussed above, this final factor weighs in favor of transferring

this case to the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville
Division.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.

Defendants Michael D. Crews and Wilbur Bala, M.D.’s Amended Motion to
Transfer Venue (Dkt. 28) is granted to the extent that this action shall be

transferred to the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville Division. The Clerk of Court is directed to effectuate this

transfer.
2.

The Clerk of Court is also directed to close this case and terminate any
pending motions as moot.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on February 20, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Even\2013\13-cv-2642.grantmotion2transfervenue.wpd

Page 6 of 6