Degenhart, M.D. v. Congaree State Bank et al
Filing
79
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 3/26/12. (bcw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
2'2
SAVANNAH DIVISION
12 6
1
WILLIAM DEGENHART, M.D.,
Plaintiff
V.
CONGAREE STATE BANK, THE
DEGEN1-IART LAW FIRM, PAUL
DEGENHART, and MARY N
DEGEN1-IART,
CASE NO. CV411-013
Defendants.
CONGAREE STATE BANK,
Cross Claimant,
V.
THE DEGENHART LAW FIRM, PAUL
DEGENHART, and MARY N
DEGEN}IART,
Cross Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Congaree State Bank's
Motion to Dismiss or Transfer. (Doc. 17.) For the
following reasons, Defendant Congaree's Motion to Dismiss or
Transfer is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant
Congaree's request for dismissal based on lack of subject
matter jurisdiction is DENIED. However, Defendant
Congaree's request for transfer is GRANTED because the Court
concludes that such transfer is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.
M Q:
22
§ 1404 (a) . Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for
the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division.
Following transfer, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close
this case.
BACKGROUND
In this case, Plaintiff alleges that his purported
signature has been fraudulently used to execute several loan
documents. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1 ¶ 10.) The documents were
executed in connection with a loan obtained by MND
Properties, LLC from Defendant Congaree State Bank
("Congaree"), a South Carolina bank. (Id. ¶J 2, 7.)
Defendants Mary Nell Degenhart and Paul Degenhart, residents
of South Carolina, are principals in both MND Properties and
(Id. ¶I 8-9.) The documents
Defendant Degenhart Law Firm.
bearing the allegedly fraudulent signatures are several
promissory notes, mortgages, and personal guarantees.
(Id.
¶ 10.) According to Plaintiff, these loan transactions were
closed by Defendant Degenhart Law Firm, which is located in
South Carolina. (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff maintains that he
"did not sign any of these documents, nor did he authorize
the execution of any of the documents." (Id. ¶ 11.)
2
After learning of the fraudulent use of his signature,
Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Chatham
County.
(Id.)
In the complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages
from all Defendants for breach of duty. (Id. ¶T 19-20.) In
support of this claim, Plaintiff reasons that Defendants
Mary Nell Degenhart, Paul Degenhart, and Degenhart Law Firm
"failed to provide the Plaintiff with the benefit of their
professional skill and judgment by allowing false and/or
improperly utilized signatures to be affixed to documents."
(Id. ¶ 19.) With respect to Defendant Congaree, Plaintiff
contends that Defendant Congaree 'breached the standard of
care applicable to the banking industry through accepting
loan documents as valid and binding without taking
independent action to verify the validity of the
signatures." (Id. ¶ 20.) In addition, Plaintiff seeks a
declaratory judgment that he is not bound by either the
personal guarantee or the promissory note. (Id. ¶ 28.)
On January 28, 2011, Defendants timely removed this
case from the Superior Court of Chatham County based on this
Court's diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1.) On May 19, 2011,
Defendant Congaree filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction or Transfer.
(Doc. 17.)
In its motion,
Defendant Congaree argues that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim for a declaratory
judgment. (Id. at 3-4.) In the alternative, Defendant
Congaree contends that the Court should transfer this case
to the Federal District Court for the District of South
Carolina. (Id. at 4-9.) In his response, Plaintiff reasons
that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 (Doc. 21 at 4-5) and that the case should be
litigated in Georgia (id. at 21).
ANALYSIS
I. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
In its motion, Defendant Congaree argues that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction because, under Georgia
law, Georgia courts lack the power to adjudicate disputes
involving title to real property located in another state.
(Doc. 17 at 3-4.) In response, Plaintiff contends that
jurisdiction is proper because he has shown complete
diversity and that greater than $75,000 is in dispute, and
Georgia law does not preclude a Georgia Court from granting
him the relief he seeks. (Doc. 21 at 4-5.) In this case,
Plaintiff invoked this Court's diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. Pursuant to that statute, there are only
two requirements that must be met for this Court to exercise
4
subject matter jurisdiction over this case: (1) that there
exists complete diversity between the parties and (2) that
the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.
28
U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff has established both requirements
arid, as a result, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over his claim.
Defendant Congaree's argument concerning the lack of
this Court's ability to grant Plaintiff relief misses the
point with respect to subject matter jurisdiction. Congress
has granted this Court the power to hear any case so long as
the requirements of § 1332 are met. What Defendant Congaree
is contending is that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Such an argument is
properly advanced in a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6). It does not, however,
divest this Court of the subject matter jurisdiction
Congress saw proper to impart on federal district courts.
Accordingly, Defendant Congaree's request to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction is DENIED.
II. DEFENDANT CONGAREE'S MOTION TO TRANSFER
In its motion, Defendant Congaree requests, as
alternative relief, transfer of this case to the District
5
Court of South Carolina.
(Doc. 17 at 4-8.)
28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a) provides that, 1f1or the convenience of the
parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought."
"Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the
District Court to adjudicate motions for transfer according
to an
'individualized,
case-by-case consideration of
A motion to transfer under
convenience and fairness.'
§ 1404(a) thus calls on the District Court to weigh in the
balance a number of case-specific factors." Stewart Org.,
Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van
Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
The Court's analysis of a § 1404(a) motion is guided by
several factors: (l) 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
6
efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the
totality of the circumstances." Manuel v. Convergys Corp.,
430 F.3d 1132, 1135 n.l (11th Cir. 2005); see Moore v.
McKibbon Brothers, Inc., 41 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1356 (N.D. Ga.
1998).
Of these considerations, the most important factor
is the convenience of the witnesses.
Duckworth v. Med.
Electro-Therapeutics, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 822, 831 (S.D. Ga.
1991).
The party seeking transfer bears the burden of
demonstrating 'that the balance of convenience and justice
'weighs heavily in favor of the transfer.' "
Id. at 831
(quoting Elec. Transaction Network v. Katz, 734 F. Supp.
492, 501 (N.D. Ga. 1989)). Ordinarily, the "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) (citations
omitted). However, '[t]he significance of the plaintiff's
choice is diminished if the forum selected is not the home
district of any of the parties involved in the action."
Aeroquip Corp. v. Deutsch Co., 887 F. Supp. 293, 294 (S.D.
Ga. 1995); accord Haworth, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc., 821
F. Supp. 1476, 1479 (N.D. Ga. 1992)
7
In this case, the Court concludes that transfer to the
Columbia Division of the Federal District Court for the
District of South Carolina is appropriate under § 1404(a).
First, venue is proper in South Carolina because Defendants
all are South Carolina residents.
See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b) (1) (laying venue in any judicial district where a
defendant resides if all defendants are residents of the
state in which the district is located) . Second, all of the
events that gave rise to Plaintiff's claim occurred in South
Carolina. Georgia's only connection with this case is that
one of its resident's name was fraudulently used on several
loan documents. This case involves a South Carolina bank, a
South Carolina law firm, and two South Carolina attorneys.
Indeed, even the property used as security for the loans is
located in South Carolina.' These facts weigh heavily in
favor of transfer.
1
While it has no bearing on this Court's decision with
respect to the appropriateness of transferring venue, the
Court is aware of Defendant Congaree's arguments that this
Court lacks to power grant Plaintiff relief because he is
bringing a local action concerning matters that ultimately
will affect title to South Carolina real estate, which must
be brought in South Carolina. The Court takes no position
on the merits of Defendant Congaree's argument, but only
points out that transfer to the District of South Carolina
would appear to avoid that issue.
8
Third, South Carolina is much more convenient to the
overwhelming majority of both the parties and primary
witnesses. Again, all the events at issue in this case took
place in South Carolina. With the exception of Plaintiff,
all Defendants are in South Carolina. In addition, the
overwhelming majority of both witnesses and evidence in this
case is likely to be located in South Carolina. Also, there
is no indication that Plaintiff, a medical doctor, lacks the
means to prosecute this case in Columbia, South Carolina—a
short two-and-a-half hour drive from Savannah. As a result,
these factors weigh heavily in favor of transfer.
Finally, trial efficiency, the interests of justice,
and the totality of the circumstances weigh in favor of
transfer. It is likely that South Carolina law will apply
to much of this case, which is, of course, better understood
by South Carolina courts. In addition, all the events took
place in South Carolina and involve a South Carolina bank, a
South Carolina law firm, two South Carolina attorneys, and
South Carolina real property. Clearly, South Carolina has a
greater interest in the adjudication of this dispute.
Assessing the totality of the Circumstances involved in this
9
case, the Court concludes that transfer to the District of
South Carolina, Columbia Division is appropriate.2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Congaree's Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or Transfer is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant Congaree's request
based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.
However, Defendant Congaree's request for transfer is
GRANTED because the Court concludes that such transfer is
appropriate under 28
U.S.C. §
1404(a). Accordingly, the
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TRANSFER this case to the
United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Columbia Division. Following transfer, the Clerk
of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED this
day of March 2012.
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
2
The Court notes that several defendants have filed Motions
to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Docs. 46, 48.)
While the Court is not deciding that matter here, at first
glance it would certainly appear that this Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over these defendants, requiring their
dismissal from this case. Once again, transfer to the
District of South Carolina would appear to resolve this
issue.
10
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?