Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Because Emblaze filed its motion after the transferee court received the file, and that was not the result of this Court acting "hastily" in transferring the case's papers, this Court does not have jurisdiction to reconsider its decision. Emblaze's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 26) is DENIED. (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 6/2/2011) (jpo)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
10 Civ. 5713 (PKC)
P. KEVIN CASTEL, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff Emblaze, Ltd. (Emblaze brings a patent infringement action
alleging that defendant Apple, Inc. (Apple has infringed its patent in violation of 35
U.S.C.§ 271. Apple moved to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), and I granted that motion
by Memorandum and Order dated February 24, 2011. Emblaze has moved under Local
Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of that decision.
Apple argues that this Court no longer has jurisdiction to reconsider its
decision, now that the transfer has occurred. See In re Northwest Airlines Corp., No. 07
Civ. 2677, 2008 WL 4755377 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 28, 2008) (
“Following the proper transfer of
a case from one district to another pursuant to§ 1404(a), the transferor court loses all
jurisdiction over the case. ).1 Generally, a decision transferring a case can only be
reconsidered or appealed through a writ of mandamus if the petitioner acts “prior to receipt
of the action’s papers by the clerk of the transferee court[ ] to file the petition for the writ
Emblaze is not challenging whether this Court had the power to transfer the case under § 1404(a), but
merely that it erred in granting the motion to transfer. Cf. Farrell v. Wyatt, 408 F.2d 662, 665 (2d Cir.
1969) (“[T]he question here is whether the district court had power to order the transfer; when that is the
issue, we reject the argument . . . that the clerk’s physical transfer of the file destroyed our jurisdiction.”).
or a motion in the transferor court to stay the order. Warrick v. General Electric Co., 70
F.3d 736, 739 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Drabik v. Murphy, 246 F.2d 408, 408-10 (2d Cir.
1957)). However, there is an exception to this rule where“the district court has acted
hastily in transferring the case’s papers, [such that] a diligent petitioner . . . would be
precluded from seeking mandamus. Id. (internal quotations and omissions omitted).
In this district, Local Rule 83.1 requires the clerk to wait for the expiration
of seven days before mailing the original case file to the transferee court. This Court
signed the order directing transfer of the action on February 24, 2011, and that order was
entered February 25, 2011. The case was then electronically transmitted to the Northern
District of California on March 4, 2011.2 The docket entry reflecting this transmission
notes that it was“Filed on February, 25, 2011 but “
Entered on March 4, 2011. Under this
district’s Electronic Case Filing (
“ECF) Rules, a document is deemed filed on the date and
time stated on the Notice of Electronic Filing (
“NEF from the Court. (ECF Rule 13.11.)
The NEF from this district indicates that the docket transaction was entered on March 4,
2011. (Decarlo Decl., Exh. 1.) The Northern District of California received the
electronic transfer the same day, March 4, according to a Notice of Transfer on that
Court’s docket. (Docket No. 26, 11 Civ. 1079 (N.D. Cal. March 8, 2011).) Emblaze filed
its motion for reconsideration on March 11, 2011. (Docket No. 25.)
Emblaze argues that the transfer of the case should not deprive it of the
right to timely move for reconsideration within fourteen days under Local Rule 6.3.
However, Emblaze did not move for reconsideration until well after the expiration of
seven days from the order granting transfer. That order was signed on January 24 and
Based upon phone conversations with the Clerks’ offices in both this District and in the District of
Northern California, it appears that this electronic transmission is the only transfer which takes place. No
longer is a physical file sent when an electronically filed case is transferred.
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?