Tlapanco v. Elges et al
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. For the reasons stated in this Memorandum and Order, the Michigan Defendants' motion to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case accordingly. In light of that decision, the Court denies as moot the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and a recently filed request to extend the time for discovery. This resolves Docket Nos. 31, 66, and 85. SO ORDERED. Denying as moot 31 Motion to Dismiss; Granting 66 Motion to Transfer Case; Denying as moot 85 SECOND LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Solomon M. Radner dated 09/12/2016. Document filed by Johnny Tlapanco. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 9/15/2016) (rjm) [Transferred from nysd on 9/26/2016.]
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ELECTRO~ICALLY
FILED
DOC#:
DATE F-IL-E-D:-.fS....,.,.E-p
5,......,2...,....C} ~
.......
...,,...,1
Johnny Tlapanco,
Plaintiff,
15-cv-2852 (AJN)
-vMEMORANDUM &
ORDER
Jon Elges, et al.,
Defendants.
ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:
This action stems from the arrest and detention of Plaintiff Johnny Tlapanco on charges
that he used an online messaging service to blackmail a Michigan high school student into
sending naked pictures of herself. The charges were dropped after it became clear that Tlapanco
was not the individual who had communicated with the victim. Tlapanco brings suit against the
police officers and police departments in Michigan and New York that were involved in the
investigation and carried out his arrest. He claims that they deprived him of various
constitutional and civil rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although Tlapanco was arrested
in New York, where he resides, the investigation that led to his arrest was conducted in
Michigan, he was extradited to Michigan, and the charges were brought-and shortly thereafter
dropped-in Michigan. Three Michigan police officers and the Michigan police department that
spearheaded the investigation (the "Michigan Defendants") have moved to transfer this action to
the Eastern District of Michigan. Several of those defendants have also moved to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, the Comi grants the motion and
therefore declines to reach the issue of personal jurisdiction. 1
1
A district court may "transfer venue even if it Jacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants." Fort Knox
Music Inc. v. Baptiste, 257 F.3d I 08, 112 (2d Cir. 2001 ). Accordingly, the Court may resolve the "threshold
question" of venue "before addressing jurisdiction." Jn re Facebook, Inc., !PO Sec. & Derivative Litig., 922 F.
I.
BACKGROUND 2
The investigation that led to Tlapanco's arrest began in March 2014. In early March, a
fomieen-year-old female student at Oxford High School in Rochester, Michigan, reported to her
school security officer that she was being blackmailed by a stranger using the online instant
messenger known as "KIK." Compl. ~ 23. 3 The stranger, whose display name was
"anonymous," claimed that he had hacked into the student's phone, retrieved naked pictures of
her that were stored on the phone, and would share those photos with her friends and family if
~
she refused to send additional naked pictures. Id.
24.
The high school contacted the Oakland County, Michigan Sheriff's Department, which
assigned the case to Detective Jonathan Elges. Id.
~
26. Elges proceeded to interview the
student and a male friend of hers who had possessed her phone recently and who had received
naked photos from the student in the past. Id.
~~
of their phones, as well as the student's iPod. Id.
27-28. Elges received consent to inspect both
~~
28. Carol Liposky, a detective with the
Oakland County sheriff's office, later performed a forensic examination on the two cell phones
and the iPod, which included messages sent from "anonymous" to the student. Id.
~~
14, 36-37.
As part of the initial investigation, Elges sent a request to KIK for the email address and
the recent IP addresses belonging to the person with the username "anonymous." Id.
~
31. As
Tlapanco notes, there is a difference between a "username" and a "display name"-the former is
the permanent name associated with a KIK account, whereas the latter is a changeable name that
is displayed when a person uses KIK. Id.
~~
31, 51. It does not appear that Elges appreciated
Supp. 2d 445, 455 (S.D.N. Y. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. I, 6 n. 4
(2005), afj"d sub nom., In re Facebook, Inc., Initial Pub. Offering Derivative Litig., 797 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2015).
2
Unless otherwise noted, the facts described here are taken from Tlapanco's second amended complaint
and assumed to be true for purposes of this motion. Dickerson v. Novartis Corp., 315 F.R.D. 18, 23 n. l (S.D.N.Y.
2016). In addition to Tlapanco's complaint, the Court also considers the affidavits submitted by the Michigan
Defendants in support of the motion. See Mohsen v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., No. l 1-CV-6751 (PGG), 2013 WL
5312525, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013) (noting that "a court may consider material outside of the pleadings,"
including affidavits, "[i]n deciding a motion to transfer").
3
The Court uses "Comp!." to refer to Tlapanco's second amended complaint, which is available as an
exhibit to Docket No. 63. Tlapanco has also attempted to file the second amended complaint as a stand-alone
document at Docket Nos. 83 and 84.
2
this difference at the time he sent the request to KIK. Id. The information Elges received back
from KIK led him to Tlapanco. Id.
~
32. Tlapanco's Gmail address was linked to the KIK
account with the username "anonymous," and the IP addresses from which that account was
accessed were linked to Tlapanco's college and residence. Id.
~~
32-34.
In May 2014, Elges discovered Tlapanco's cell phone number through a warrant sent to
Facebook, and he then obtained Tlapanco's cell phone records. Id.
~
38. Shortly thereafter,
Elges reached out to Gregory Thornton, a detective for the NYPD, to have him execute a search
warrant for an address in Brooklyn. Id.
~~
19, 39. Elges sent Thornton an affidavit that was
sworn before a magistrate judge in Michigan. Id.
~
39. Thornton also swore and served a
warrant for connection data from Kingsborough Community College-Tlapanco's school. Id.
~
40. Elges and his Michigan-based colleague, Detective Jason Louwaert of the Oakland County
sheriffs office, 4 executed a search warrant on Tlapanco's home, seized several electronic
devices, and questioned Tlapanco about the case. Id.
~~
41-43.
The Oakland County Prosecutor's Office subsequently issued an eight-count felony
warrant for Tlapanco, sworn before a Michigan magistrate judge. Elges Aff.
No. 67-2. Tlapanco was arrested by the NYPD on July 9, 2014. Compl.
~
~il
5( ee )-(ff), Dkt.
47. He spent two
weeks in jail at Riker's Island, at which point Elges extradited him to Michigan.
Id.~
48.
Tlapanco was arraigned on the charges by video from the Oakland County jail on July 23, 2014.
Id.
~
49. Several weeks later, Tlapanco's counsel met with Elges and explained the
username/display name distinction. Id.
~
51. Elges spoke with the Oakland County Prosecutor's
Office, and the prosecutor informed the Michigan court that he intended to drop all charges. Id.
~
53. The case was dismissed on August 12, 2014. Id.
4
The second amended complaint contains conflicting information as to which police department Louwae1t
worked for. He is initially described as a "detective for the sheriff's office for the County of Oakland, State of
Michigan" Comp!. if 15, but is later referred to as "Defendant Louwaert of the New York Police Department," id.
if 41. The latter characterization appears to be in error, given that the Michigan Defendants have indicated that
Louwae1t is a member of the Oakland County sheriff's office. Reply Br. 2.
3
Tlapanco brought this suit on April 13, 2015. Dkt. No. 1. He alleges that Defendants
recklessly and indifferently deprived him of various constitutional rights, in violation of 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. ~ 58. He contends that he was arrested and prosecuted without probable
cause, and he brings claims for municipal liability against Oakland County and the NYPD. Id.
~~
68, 74, 86-89. In his initial complaint, Tlapanco named only Elges, Liposky, Michael
Bouchard (the sheriff of Oakland County), and Oakland County as defendants (collectively, the
"Michigan Defendants" 5). Dkt. No. 1 ~~ 8-11. The second amended complaint includes
Thornton, Louwaert, and the NYPD as defendants (together with the Michigan Defendants,
"Defendants"). Compl. ~~ 15, 19-21. Two individual defendants-Liposky and Bouchard-and
Oakland County have moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 31. The
Michigan Defendants have moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Michigan. Dkt.
No. 66.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A court may exercise its discretion to transfer a civil action to "any other district ...
where [the action] might have been brought" if the transfer is "[ f]or the convenience of parties
and witnesses, in the interest of justice." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see also NY Marine & Gen. Ins.
Co. v. Lafarge N Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010). In evaluating a motion to transfer,
a court considers the following non-exhaustive set of factors:
(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the convenience of witnesses, (3) the location of
relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the convenience of
parties, (5) the locus of operative facts, (6) the availability of process to compel the
attendance of unwilling witnesses, and (7) the relative means of the parties.
NY Marine, 599 F.3d at 112 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A court may also
weigh "the forum's familiarity with the governing law and trial efficiency and the interest of
justice, based on the totality of the circumstances." Children's Network, LLC v. PixFusion LLC,
5
Although Louwaert appears to also reside in Michigan, for simplicity's sake the Court uses "Michigan
Defendants" to refer only to the defendants who have moved to transfer.
4
722 F. Supp. 2d 404, 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "No
one factor is dispositive and the relative weight of each factor depends on the paiiicular
circumstances of the case." Smart Skins LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 14-CV-10149 (CM), 2015
WL 1499843, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2015). Ultimately, "[t]he movant bears the burden of
establishing, by 'clear and convincing evidence,' that a transfer of venue is warranted."
Children's Network, 722 F. Supp. 2d at 409.
III.
DISCUSSION
The Michigan Defendants seek to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Michigan.
As an initial matter, Plaintiffs do not contest that this case "might have been brought" in that
district, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Given that "a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" in the Eastern District of Michigan, where Oakland
County is located, the Court agrees that venue there would be proper. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
The central question, therefore, is whether the transfer factors suppo1i the Michigan Defendants'
position that a transfer of venue is warranted. After considering each factor in turn, the Court
concludes that they do.
A.
The Plaintiff's Choice of Forum
Generally, the "plaintiffs choice of forum should be accorded deference" ifthe "other
factors do not weigh strongly in favor of transfer." ESPN, Inc. v. Quiksilver, Inc., 581 F. Supp.
2d 542, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). That deference is diminished, however, when the chosen forum
"is neither the [plaintiffs] home nor the place where the operative facts of the action occurred."
Fisher v. Int 'l Student Exch., Inc., 38 F. Supp. 3d 276, 286 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). Here, Tlapanco's
home forum is the Eastern, not Southern, District of New York. See Comp!. ii 12 (alleging that
Tlapanco was "at all relevant times ... a resident of the City of Brooklyn"). The search that was
conducted of Tlapanco's home therefore also took place in the Eastern District. See id.
iii! 39,
41. Tlapanco's complaint is generally devoid of allegations that link the important events of the
case to this district, other than the cursory claim that "the search and seizure, the arrest, and the
5
imprisonment in New York ... all occurred in the Southern District of New York"-a claim that
is undermined by the previously described allegations that the search of Tlapanco' s home
actually took place in the Eastern District. See
id.~~
9, 12, 39, 41. Accordingly, Tlapanco's
decision to bring this case in the Southern District is entitled to reduced weight.
B.
The Convenience of Witnesses and Parties
"The convenience of witnesses is typically the most important factor when considering a
motion to transfer." Eres N. V v. Citgo Asphalt Ref Co., 605 F. Supp. 2d 473, 480 (S.D.N.Y.
2009). In weighing this factor, "the convenience of non-party witnesses is accorded more weight
than that of party witnesses." Mastr Asset Backed Sec. Trust 2007-WMCI, ex rel. US. Bank
Nat'! Ass'n v. WMC Mortgage LLC, 880 F. Supp. 2d 418, 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court "must consider the materiality, nature, and
quality of each witness, not merely the number of witnesses in each district." AEC One Stop
Grp., Inc. v. CD Listening Bar, Inc., 326 F. Supp. 2d 525, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Applying that standard, this factor tips decidedly in favor
of transferring the case to Michigan.
Beginning with the non-party witnesses, Defendants identify many Michigan-based
witnesses whose testimony will be important at trial. For starters, the victim, her father, her male
friend, and her school's administrators all reside in Michigan. The Michigan Defendants have
proffered that these individuals will testify to the contents of the victim's phone, the nature of the
victim's complaint to her school, and their interactions with police during the investigation. See
Defs. Br. 12. In other words, they will shed light on what the police knew early on in the
investigation and whether their subsequent steps were reasonable. Given Tlapanco's claim that
Defendants were "recklessly indifferent and plainly incompetent" in conducting their
investigation,
Comp!.~
57, it will be important to understand what information was presented to
the police and what that information suggested about who could be a suspect. These witnessesthe source of most of that initial information-will be vital to that purpose.
6
Additionally, as best the Court can tell, every person involved in the decision whether to
charge Tlapanco resides in Michigan. Some of those individuals, like Elges, are defendants here,
but the Michigan Defendants also identify eight potential non-party witnesses who are either
officers of the Oakland County Sheriffs Office or work for the Oakland County Prosecutor's
Office. Id. at 13. These witnesses may provide insight into the key decisions made during the
investigation. Ultimately, in order to prove that he was the victim of a false arrest, Tlapanco will
have to show that he was arrested without probable cause. See Harewood v. Braithwaite, 64 F.
Supp. 3d 384, 397 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ("existence of probable cause ... is a complete defense to an
action for false arrest" under§ 1983 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The
testimony of non-party witnesses in Michigan will help a jury determine whether Defendants had
sufficient information upon which to charge and arrest Tlapanco.
By contrast, Tlapanco's efforts to identity important non-party witnesses in New York
are unavailing. First, he suggests that personnel at his college will testify as to his internet usage,
but he provides no explanation as to why this testimony will be important. Opp. Br. 5. Second,
Tlapanco claims that most individuals who witnessed "the violations of Mr. Tlapanco' s civil
rights"-i.e., the search of his home, his interview with police, his arrest, and his detention-are
based in New York. Id. Several of these individuals-namely Elges, Louwaert, and Thorntonare parties, and at least two of them (Elges and Louwaert) reside in Michigan. But to the extent
non-party witnesses from New York would testify to the incidents that Tlapanco recounts in his
complaint, there is nothing to suggest that they would do anything more than establish the fact
that each of those incidents occurred. In other words, they would confirm that Elges' s home was
searched, that he was questioned, and that he was arrested and detained. Those facts, however,
are not likely to be in dispute. The central question in this case is whether the police had
sufficient cause to take each of those investigative steps, not whether they actually did so. The
nature of the testimony from these as-yet-unnamed witnesses therefore suggests their
contribution would not be particularly material. See AEC One Stop, 326 F. Supp. 2d at 529.
7
With respect to the party witnesses, four of the five individual defendants live in
Michigan, and the testimony of those Michigan-based defendants will be important at trial. As
Tlapanco's complaint makes clear, it was the Oakland County police officers, and Elges in
particular, who had primary responsibility for the investigation. See Compl. ilil 26-46
(describing the steps in the investigation, nearly all of which were initiated by Elges ). In fact,
Tlapanco alleges that Thornton-the only New-York-based police officer-"relied solely on the
information from the Michigan Defendants." Compl.
if 67 (emphasis added).
On the other hand,
Tlapanco resides in New York and would clearly be inconvenienced by needing to travel to
Michigan. On the whole though, there are more party witnesses with ties to Michigan.
Neither party offers a persuasive reason why the convenience of the parties is distinct
from the convenience of the party witnesses here. Tlapanco claims that any inconvenience to the
Michigan Defendants would be mitigated because they could "easily work in conjunction with
[their] New York co-defendants." Opp. Br. 6. But the two sets of defendants are represented by
different counsel, and travel to this district is inconvenient for the Michigan Defendants
irrespective of whether other defendants reside here. Accordingly, the convenience of the parties
does not alter the Court's assessment of this factor.
For the foregoing reasons, trial in the Eastern District of Michigan would be more
convenient for the majority of witnesses whose testimony would be most valuable in this case.
C.
The Location of Relevant Documents
The location of relevant documents and the ease of access to sources of proof is mostly a
neutral factor, in light of "the technological age in which we live, where there is widespread use
of, among other things, electronic document production." Rindfleisch v. Gentiva Health Sys.,
Inc., 752 F. Supp. 2d 246, 258 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). But to the extent this factor carries any weight,
it supports transferring the case to Michigan. The affidavit submitted by Elges indicates that the
vast majority of documents relating to the investigation originated in, or were sent to, Michigan.
Elges Aff.
ilil 5(n)-(dd) (describing responses to requests for information from KIK,
Sprint,
Google, Kingsborough Community College, Cablevision, Facebook, and MetroPCS). Tlapanco
8
asserts that "much" of the evidence gathered by the Oakland County Police Department was sent
to New York to be used by the NYPD. Opp. Br. 5. But the portions of the complaint he cites
describe only two warrants executed in New York, not a wholesale transfer of the case file.
Compl.
~~
39, 40. Moreover, Tlapanco does not address Defendants' argument that the file
containing all the photographs and conversations stored on the electronic devices collected in the
case is located in Michigan. See Defs. Br. 14. It is not surprising that all of these documents
should be found in the state where the investigation unfolded.
D.
Locus of Operative Facts
"The locus of operative facts is a primary factor in determining whether to transfer
venue." Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., No. 14-CV-6942 (JPO), 2015 WL
3767445, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The
"locus of operative facts" is the place where the "acts or omissions for which Defendants could
be held liable occurred." Solar v. Annetts, 707 F. Supp. 2d 437, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Transfer
is generally appropriate "[ w ]here a cause of action arises from claims of alleged wrongdoing in
the proposed transferee district." Sheet Metal Workers' Nat 'l Pension Fund v. Gallagher, 669 F.
Supp. 88, 92-93 (S.D.N. Y. 1987). Moreover, "[t]ransfer is not precluded where the operative
facts have some connection to the initial forum," so long as "the transferee district has a stronger
connection with the operative facts." Id. at 93.
Here, the operative facts have a minimal connection to this district. As the Court has
already explained, Tlapanco resides, and his residence was searched, outside of this district.
Comp!.
~~
12, 41. The complaint does not indicate where Tlapanco was arrested, though it does
suggest he spent two weeks in jail in this district.
Id.~
48 ("Plaintiff spent two weeks at Riker's
Island jail."). Tlapanco argues in his brief that several steps relating to the investigation, such as
his questioning and Elges' s presence for his extradition, took place in New York. Opp. Br. 7.
He makes no attempt, however, to tie those events to this district. Even if he had done so, the
overwhelming percentage of "acts or omissions for which Defendants could be held liable" took
place in the Eastern District of Michigan." Solar, 707 F. Supp. 2d at 442.
9
First, all of the initial investigative steps took place in Michigan, including conversations
with the victim and her male friend, the forensic analysis of the victim's cell phone and her
friend's cell phone, and the requests that were issued (and responded to) relating to the
"anonymous" KIK account. Elges Aff.
il~
5(g)-(z). Second, the investigation of the items seized
from Tlapanco's residence was authorized from, and conducted in, Michigan. Id
~
5(bb)-(cc).
Third, the warrant for Tlapanco' s arrest was issued and sworn out in Michigan, and Tlapanco
was arraigned in Michigan.
Id.~~
5(ee)-(hh). Fourth, and perhaps most significantly, the
relevant omissions (to the extent they exist) took place in Michigan. Tlapanco alleges that both
the search of his home and his eventual arrest were based "solely and detrimentally on the false
information provided by" Elges and his fellow defendants. Comp!.
~~
41, 4 7 (emphasis added).
To the extent that characterization is correct, the inaccurate information was the result of
investigative omissions in Michigan. For instance, Tlapanco suggests in his complaint that Elges
should have investigated the large amount of data that was sent from the victim's phone to her
friend's phone. Id
i! 30.
He also suggests that Elges failed to perform due diligence on the
difference between a username and a display name for a KIK user. Id.
~
31. In Tlapanco' s own
telling then, the shortcomings of this investigation were centered in Michigan. Given that those
shortcomings form the basis of his claims here, the Eastern District of Michigan is the locus of
operative facts.
E.
The Availability of Process to Compel Unwilling Witnesses
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, the Court generally cannot issue a
subpoena that would compel a non-party witness to travel more than 100 miles. Ea.syWeb
Innovations, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 888 F. Supp. 2d 342, 354 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Such a
restriction would prevent the Court from subpoenaing the many non-party witnesses who reside
in Michigan. But the Michigan Defendants have not provided any affidavits from those
witnesses indicating that they would not voluntarily testify. See Eres N. V, 605 F. Supp. 2d at
482. Accordingly, this factor does not bear on the transfer analysis. EasyWeb, 888 F. Supp. 2d
at 354.
10
F.
The Relative Means of the Parties
"The relative means of the opposing parties may support or discourage transfer of venue
if there is a significant financial disparity between the parties." Herbert Ltd. P 'ship v. Elec. Arts
Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 282, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). But if"proof of such disparity is not adequately
provided, or does not exist, this is not a significant factor to be considered." Mazuma Holding
Corp. v. Bethke, 1 F. Supp. 3d 6, 32 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Tlapanco alleges that Defendants have greater financial means to litigate this case in
New York than he does to litigate it in Michigan. Opp. Br. 8. That may be true, but where a
"plaintiffl:] ha[ s] not supplied the court with any documentation showing that transfer would be
financially burdensome, this factor is neutral." Speedjit LLC v. Woodway USA, Inc., 53 F. Supp.
3d 561, 578 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).
G.
The Forum's Familiarity with Governing Law
As the parties acknowledge, both this Court and the District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan are familiar with the law governing civil rights claims brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Defs Br. 16; Opp. Br. 9. This factor is therefore neutral.
I.
Trial Efficiency and the Interest of Justice
This factor is also neutral. Most of the arguments pertaining to this factor simply
repackage the discussion of previous factors, such as the convenience of witnesses and the locus
of operative facts. Tlapanco contends, however, that there has been a "great deal of previous
litigation in this Court,'' which suggests a transfer would be against the interests of justice. Opp.
Br. 9. This characterization is inaccurate. The only two motions the Court has considered-the
instant motion to transfer and the pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdictionrelate to the suitability of this forum, not the merits of the dispute between the parties. Discovery
is still ongoing, see Dkt. No. 75, and this Court has not had to intervene in the case in a manner
that would speed the resolution of future issues. Accordingly, the interests of justice would be
equally well served by litigating the case here or in Michigan.
***
11
The two most important transfer factors-the convenience of the witnesses and the locus
of operative facts-strongly support transferring this action to the Eastern District of Michigan.
In fact, the only factor weighing against transfer is Tlapanco's decision to bring suit here. But
even that factor is less significant in this case, given that Tlapanco has not brought suit in his
home forum. Moreover, even when a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to the usual
deference, that deference can be overcome where, as here, the other factors "weigh strongly in
favor of transfer." ESPN, 581 F. Supp. 2d at 547. The case against Tlapanco originated in
Michigan; the investigation was primarily conducted in Michigan; charges were filed in
Michigan; Tlapanco was arraigned in Michigan; and any investigative omissions likely took
place in Michigan. At bottom, Tlapanco claims he was the victim of an investigation gone awry.
But unsurprisingly, the lion's share of the facts and testimony relating to those allegations can be
found in the place where the investigation unfolded: Michigan. The Court therefore holds that
the Michigan Defendants have established, "by 'clear and convincing evidence,' that a transfer
of venue is warranted." Children's Network, 722 F. Supp. 2d at 409.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Michigan Defendants' motion to transfer this case to
the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is GRANTED. The Clerk of
Court is directed to transfer this case accordingly.
In light of that decision, the Court denies as moot the motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction and a recently filed request to extend the time for discovery. This resolves
Docket Nos. 31, 66, and 85.
SO ORDERED.
12
f,
Dated: September \
2016
New York, New York
13
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?