Galiana v. Autobahn Indoor Speedway, LLC et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Denying 33 Motion to Transfer Venue. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 2/18/2015. (bas, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
RAFAEL GALIANA

*
Plaintiff

vs.

*
*

Kart1 LLC

*
Defendant

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-13-3531

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE:TRANSFER
The Court has before it Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer
Venue [Document 33] and the materials submitted relating
thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.
Plaintiff brought this case presenting patent and nonpatent claims.

As made perfectly clear in the Court's case

planning conference with counsel, Plaintiff's maximum potential
recovery in regard to the patent claims is grossly
disproportionate to the cost of litigation to Defendant Kart1,
LLC and Plaintiff as well.
Plaintiff has sued defendants in the Middle District of
Florida against whom, he presumably believes, he can assert
patent claims with a reasonable potential recovery.

By the

instant motion he seeks to have this Court transfer the instant
case to the Middle District of Florida.

Title 28, U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that for "the
convenience of 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."
There is no doubt that the instant case might have been brought
in the Middle District of Florida.
A district court is vested with great discretion in
determining whether to grant a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
See Lynch v. Vanderhoef Builders, 237 F. Supp. 2d 615, 617 (D.
Md. 2002); Akers v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 378 F.2d 78, 81 (4th
Cir. 1967); Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32 (1955).
Typically, § 1404 motions are made by defendants and are
opposed by plaintiffs who wish to preserve their choice of
forum.

Hence, it is typically said that, on a § 1404 motion,

the burden lies with the defendant to show that a transfer is in
the interests of justice.

Stratagene v. Parsons Behle &

Latimer, 315 F. Supp. 2d 765, 771 (D. Md. 2004).

And the Fourth

Circuit has stated, "a district court is required to weigh the
factors involved and '[u]nless the balance is strongly in favor
of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely
be disturbed.'"

Collins v. Straight, Inc., 748 F.2d 916, 921

(4th Cir. 1984) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S.
501, 508 (1946)).

2

In this case, the plaintiff chose to file suit in the
District of Maryland but now changes his mind.

Even if,

contrary to the Court's view, the Defendant would bear the
burden of persuasion on the instant motion, the Court would deny
the motion.
By no means do the interests of justice weigh in favor of
the transfer of this case to the Middle District of Florida.

In

the event, albeit highly unlikely, that future circumstances
warrant, the Court would consider a motion to transfer the
patent claims, but not the other claims.
Accordingly:
1.

Plaintiff's Motion to transfer Venue [Document
33] is DENIED.

2.

The deadline for filing summary judgment motions
on non-patent claims is hereby extended to March
13, 2015.

SO ORDERED, on Wednesday, February 18, 2015.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge

3