ZIMET v. MICRODERMIS CORPORATION et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 20 Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's 8/6/2013 Order. Signed by Judge Michael A. Shipp on 3/14/2014. (eaj)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MICHAEL ZIMET,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 13-2938 (MAS)
v.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
MICRODERMIS CORPORATION,
Defendant.

SHIPP, District Judge
On August 6, 2013, this Court issued an Order transferring the captioned proceeding to
the Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Order, ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff
Michael Zimet now moves for reconsideration of that Order. (Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 20.)
Defendant Microdermis Corporation filed opposition. (Def.'s Opp'n, ECF No. 26.) The Court
resolves Zimet' s motion without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1.
This Court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider the August 6, 2013 Order. "The rule is wellestablished that a transferor court loses jurisdiction to reconsider its order for transfer once the
records in the transferred action are physically transferred to and received by the transferee
court." Database Am. Inc. v. Bellsouth Adver. & Publ'g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216, 1221 (D.N.J.
1993); see Tuoni v. Elec. Evidence Discovery Inc., No. 10-2235, 2011 WL 540392, at *2 (D.N.J.
Feb. 8, 2011) (holding that court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider § 1404(a) transfer order
because case had already been docketed in transferee jurisdiction when reconsideration motion
was filed); Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No 10-5713, 2011 WL 2419802, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 3,
2011) (same); Huffv. CSX Transp., Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 853, 854-55 (S.D. Ill. 2006) (same). An

entry on the docket in this case indicates that the case was "transferred from New Jersey" and
"opened in [the] Northern District of Texas" on August 7, 2013. Plaintiff filed the instant motion
for reconsideration thirteen days later, on August 20. By that time, the court in Texas had
assumed jurisdiction of this matter, and this Court had no authority to reconsider its prior
determination. Accordingly,
IT IS on this

tt/~y of March, 2014, hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for

reconsideration of the Court's August 6, 2013 Order is DENIED.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2