Purisima v. Bryan et al
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above, Purisima's requests are DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the CUTOFF FOR DISCOVERY IS JANUARY 24, 2014. As Defendants' counsel indicated that he has not received any Rule 26 di sclosure document or discovery requests from Purisima, Purisima is ordered to serve all discovery requests on Defendants' counsel immediately, and Defendants shall file a response to such requests within twenty-one days of receipt of such discovery requests. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis on 12/12/2013) (js) Copies Mailed by Chambers
USDC SDl\t"Y
DOCUME~'"
! ELECrRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _ _- - - -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DATE FILED:
\ 2.. -
I
ANTON PURISIMA,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
- againstWE CARE (F.E.G.S.), et ai.,
11 Civ. 9159 (RJS) (RLE)
Defendants.
RONALD L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Anton Purisima ("Purisima") commenced this action on December 13,
2011, against Federation Employment Guidance Services, Inc. ("F.E.G.S.") and several
individually named Defendants (collectively, "F.E.G.S. Defendants"). He asserts claims under
federal law arising out ofa denial of public benefits after F.E.G.S. allegedly falsely reported that
he missed an appointment. Before the Court are two requests by Purisima: (1) a motion for
default judgment against Defendants; and (2) a motion to transfer venue to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York ("E.D.N.Y."). For the reasons that follow,
Purisima's requests are DENIED and IT IS ORDERED that the DISCOVERY CUTOFF
DATE IS JANUARY 24, 2014.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Purisima v. F.E.G.S. Defendants
Purisima filed a Complaint against F.E.G.S. Defendants in 2011. (Doc. No.2.) F.E.G.S.
Defendants Answered on February 21,201
(Doc. No. 10.) On March 8, 201
Purisima
served F.E.G.S. Defendants with an Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 14.) In his Amended
Complaint, Purisima indicated his intention to serve a Seeond Amended Complaint. On March
22,2013, F.E.G.S. Defendants requested an adjournment of the Court's Initial Conference,
z.. -13
which the Court granted. (See Doc. No. 19.) On March 23,2012, F.E.O.S. Defendants filed an
Amended Answer. (Doc. No. 17.) Thereafter, neither Party communicated with the Court. On
October 10,2013, the Court ordered Purisima to show cause why his case should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. No. 27.) Purisima responded on October 27, 2013,
requesting that the Court: (1) find the F.E.G.S. Defendants in default; and (2) transfer venue to
the E.D.N.Y., where Purisima has a case pending before the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis and
the Honorable Lois Bloom. (See Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff additionally indicated that he sent Rule
26(a)(l) discovery requests to F.E.G.S. Defendants' counsel. In a November 15,2013 letter to
the Court, Defendants' counsel opposed both requests, and stated that he has not received any
Rule 26 disclosure documents or discovery requests from Purisima. (See Doc. No. 29.)
B. Purisima v. Tiffany Entertainment
More than two years prior to filing the present action, Purisima filed suit against Tiffany
Entertainment in this District. See Purisma v. Tiffany Entertainment et al, Case No. 09 Civ.
6640 (LAK). Purisima alleged that Tiffany Entertainment illegally denied him accommodation
by failing to recognize a bus ticket for which he had paid in full. On July 27,2009, the
Honorable Loretta A. Preska transferred the action to the E.D.N.Y. pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§
1391(b) and 1406(a) because "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this
claim allegedly occurred in the Eastern District of N. Y." Jd. The case is still pending in the
E.D.N.Y. Purisima now argues that his case against F.E.G.S. Defendants is "related to case #
09-cv-3502 (NGG) (LB)" because "Defendants ... instigated by the agents of Defendants in the
alleged related case to conduct these illegal acts ...." (Doc. No. 28.) Purisima adds that
"Defendants in both of these cases ... were and are responsible to all these damages alleged
herein...." (Id.) In their November 15, 2013 letter, Defendants assert: "There is absolutely no
2
relationship between Tiffany Entertainment, an interstate bus company, and the instant
Defendants, a not-for-profit social service agency and its representatives." (Doc. No. 29.)
n. DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Default Judgment
In a letter dated October 27, 2013, Purisima asserts that Defendants were served with a
summons and Amended Complaint, but "never responded." (Doc. No. 28.) The record
indicates, however, that Defendants filed an Amended Answer to Purisima's Amended
Complaint on March 23, 2012, more than eighteen months ago. (See Doc. No. 17.) Plaintiffs
request for a default judgment therefore has no factual basis and is DENIED.
B. Motion to Transfer Venue
Purisima additionally asks the Court to transfer his case to the Eastern District of New
York, where his other case, Purisima v. Tiffany Entertainment, et al., is pending. Section
1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides: "For the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, in the interest ofjustice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought." The party seeking transfer maintains the
burden of making a "clear-cut showing that it is warranted and, generally speaking, unless the
balance of convenience weighs clearly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum
should not be disturbed." Nieves v. American Airlines, 700 F. Supp. 769, 771-72 (S.D.N.Y.
1988). Plaintiff chose to file his action against Defendants in this District. It is not clear to the
Court how Purisima's case against F.E.O.S. regarding his denial of public benefits is related to
his case against Tiffany Entertainment. Purisima has failed to make a clear-cut showing the
transfer is warranted. His request is DENIED.
3
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Purisima's requests are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the CUTOFF FOR DISCOVERY IS JANUARY
24,2014. As Defendants' counsel indicated that he has not received any Rule 26 disclosure
docrnnent or discovery requests from Purisima, Purisima is ordered to serve all discovery
requests on Defendants' counsel immediately, and Defendants shall file a response to such
requests within twenty-one days of receipt of such discovery requests.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of December 2013
New York, New York
The Honorable Ronald L. Ellis
United States Magistrate Judge
A copy of this Order was mailed to:
Anton Purisima
390 9th Ave.
New York, KY 10001
4
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?