HOPKINS v. MCCLINTON
OPINION AND ORDER terminating as moot Defendant's 13 Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Improper venue; The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, etc. Signed by Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion on 10/05/2017. (ek)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
YVONNE A. HOPKINS,
Civil Action No. 16cv5798-CCC-SCM
OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW C. MCCLINTON
STEVEN C. MANNION, United States Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the court upon Defendant Matthew McClinton’s motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.1 The Court has reviewed the
parties’ submissions and heard oral argument on June 1, 2017 and August 1, 2017. For the
reasons stated below, the Court transfers this matter to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas.2
(ECF Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 13, Motion). Unless indicated otherwise, the Court will refer to
documents by their docket entry number and the page numbers assigned by the Electronic Case
28 U.S.C. §1406.
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY3
This is a breach of contract action brought on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction.4
Plaintiff Yvonne Hopkins (“Ms. Hopkins”) alleges that her former attorney, Defendant Matthew
McClinton (“Mr. McClinton”) inadequately represented her, as well as misrepresented her, in a
separate breach of contract case she brought against her aunt in Texas.5 Ms. Hopkins alleges that
Mr. McClinton’s actions and inactions led to the dismissal of her case, and that Mr. McClinton
breached his fiduciary duty and committed fraud through misrepresenting her position.6 Ms.
Hopkins resided in New Jersey until she moved to Lampasas County, Texas in 2008.7 Ms.
Hopkins paid to construct a house adjacent to her aunt’s home in Lampasas County with the
intention of living there with her son who is paralyzed.8 Ms. Hopkins and her aunt had a falling
out and her aunt took possession of the house and ejected Ms. Hopkins from the premises.9
On July 2, 2009, Ms. Hopkins retained Mr. McClinton, a citizen of Texas to represent her
in a suit against her aunt to recover monies paid to construct the house.10 The suit was filed on
August 12, 2009 in Lampasas County, Texas.11
The allegations set forth within the pleadings and motion record are relied upon for purposes of
this motion only. The Court has made no findings as to the veracity of the parties’ allegations.
(D.E. 1, Complaint).
(D.E. 14, Opposition at 1).
(D.E. 14 at 1; D.E. 15-3 at 5).
(D.E. 14 at 2).
(D.E. 1 at 2; D.E. 14 at 2).
(D.E. 1 at 2; D.E. 13, Motion at 1; D.E. 14 at 1).
In 2010, Ms. Hopkins moved back to New Jersey.12 The parties agree that Ms. Hopkins
returned to Texas in about July 2012 for a deposition in the Texas litigation. Prior to then, Ms.
Hopkins stated her intention to appear for trial.13
On April 11, 2012, Ms. Hopkins filed for personal bankruptcy pro se in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.14 Trial in the Texas litigation had been
scheduled for July 16, 2012, but was reportedly adjourned because of the bankruptcy filing.15
Ms. Hopkins was then informed that the Texas litigation was an asset of the bankruptcy estate.16
The Bankruptcy Court approved an order appointing Mr. McClinton as special counsel to the
Bankruptcy Trustee on July 10, 2012.17
Notice of a potential settlement involving the Texas litigation (“the Litigation
Settlement”) was docketed in the Bankruptcy Court on October 22, 2012.18 The next day, the
Bankruptcy Court docket indicated that Ms. Hopkins had “advised that she will not appear at
trial [in Texas] to prosecute the claim” against her aunt.19 Ms. Hopkins denies making such a
(D.E. 14 at 2).
(D.E. 15-3 at 28-29; 16 at 2).
(D.E. 13 at 2; 13-1 at 24).
(D.E. 15-3 at 10).
(D.E. 15-3 at 10).
(D.E. 13-1 at 15; 15-3 at 23).
(D.E. 13-1 at 17).
(D.E. 13-1 at 17).
(D.E. 14 at 3).
Nevertheless, the Texas Court noted that the attorneys in the case had reached an
agreement, but “the plaintiff has refused it, won’t sign it, has fired her lawyer, does not agree,
will not accept it, and the attorneys have not shown up.”21 The Texas Court dismissed the suit in
November 2012 for lack of prosecution.22
Ms. Hopkins objected to the Litigation Settlement in the Bankruptcy Court on November
13, 2012 and December 19, 2013.23 The Bankruptcy Trustee then filed a substitute proceeding in
Texas against Ms. Hopkins’s aunt.24 Mr. McClinton stated at oral argument that he was not
involved in the substitute proceeding.
On January 13, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Litigation Settlement.25
Subsequently, Ms. Hopkins brought this action on September 21, 2016 against Mr. McClinton
for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud.26 Mr. McClinton moved to dismiss for
improper venue on June 15, 2017.27
(D.E. 15-3 at 15).
(D.E. 14 at 3; D.E. 15-3 at 15-16).
(D.E. 13-1 at 18, 20; D.E. 15-3 at 15).
(D.E. 15-3 at 23-24).
(D.E. 13-1 at 20).
(D.E. 1, Complaint).
II. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
A. § 636, Magistrate Judge Authority
A motion to transfer a case to another district is considered a non-dispositive motion, which
may be decided by a magistrate judge.28 The decision to grant or deny an application for transfer
is discretionary.29 If such a decision is appealed, the district court must affirm the decision unless
it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”30
B. § 1391 Propriety of Venue in District of New Jersey
Section 1391 governs venue for all civil actions brought in district courts of the United
States.31 Section 1391(b) governs where venue is proper and states that a civil action may be
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district is
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part
of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be
brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which
any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with
respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See generally Job Haines Home for the Aged v. Young, 936 F.
Supp. 223 (D.N.J. 1996).
See Cadapult Graphic Sys. v. Tektronix, Inc., 98 F. Supp. 2d 560, 564 (D.N.J. 2000) (internal
Marks v. Struble, 347 F. Supp. 2d 136, 149 (D.N.J. 2004) (internal citations omitted).
28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1).
Venue is not proper in the District of New Jersey pursuant to § 1391(b)(1) because Mr.
McClinton does not reside in this jurisdiction. Mr. McClinton resides in Texas.32
Also, venue is not proper in this District pursuant to § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim did not occur in New Jersey. The Agreement at
issue in this case was entered in Texas. Additionally, all obligations under the agreement were
intended to be performed in Texas.33 As the events giving rise to the claim did not occur in New
Jersey, venue on these claims is not proper in the District of New Jersey based on § 1391(b)(2).
Venue is not proper in this District pursuant to § 1391(b)(3) because this action may have
been brought in the Western District of Texas as explained more fully below.
C. § 1406, Venue Transfer to District of Texas
Because venue is not proper in the District of New Jersey, the Court considers whether
transfer to the District of Texas is proper.34 “The district court of a district in which is filed a case
laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,
transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”35 The Court
must assess whether (1) the action “could have been brought” in the Western District of Texas;
and (2) whether it is “in the interest of justice” to transfer the case there rather than dismiss it for
28 U.S.C. § 1406
28 U.S.C. § 1406.
The Court finds that the action “could have been brought” in the Western District of Texas.
A substantial part of the events that gave rise to the claim occurred there. Mr. McClinton’s actions
in representing Ms. Hopkins in the Texas litigation, which form the basis of the instant action, took
place in Texas, and before a Texas court. The Court also finds that it is in the “interest of justice”
to transfer the case.
The Court is mindful of the inconvenience transfer will impose on Ms. Hopkins, but the
alternative is dismissal. Section 1406(a) was enacted to “avoid the injustice which had often
resulted to plaintiffs from dismissal of their actions merely because they had made an erroneous
guess as to the facts underlying the choice of venue.”36 A transfer is appropriate here because it is
likely that the Western District of Texas will have personal jurisdiction over Mr. McClinton and a
substantial part of the events that gave rise to the claim occurred there. Rather than have Ms.
Hopkins’ complaint dismissed merely because of an erroneous calculation as to proper venue, this
Court finds that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this case.
This Court concludes that venue in the District of New Jersey is improper, and in the
interest of justice, transfers this case to the Western District of Texas. The motion to dismiss is
moot. An appropriate Order follows:
Eviner v. Eng, no. 12-2245 (KM) (MCA), 2013 WL 6450284, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2013)
(internal citations omitted).
IT IS on this Thursday, October 05, 2017,
1. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas; and it is further
2. ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is terminated as moot;37 and it is further
3. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to
10/5/2017 10:29:55 AM
Original: Clerk of the Court
Hon. Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J.
cc: All parties
Ms. Yvonne A. Hopkins
1502 Hampton Lane
Iselin, NJ 08834
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?