Le Moor Bey-Razin Rose El et al v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas et al
ORDER granting 3 9 Respondents' Motions to Change Venue. Signed by Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura on 12/8/17. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) [Transferred from ohsd on 12/8/2017.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
DOVE LE MOOR BEY-RAZIN
ROSE EL, et al.,
Civil Action 2:17-cv-917
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
SUMMIT COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, et al.,
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Respondents Motions to Change
Venue (ECF Nos. 3 and 9).
Petitioner has not opposed Defendants’ request for a change of
For the reasons that follow, the Motion s are GRANTED and this action is
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Petitioner, Le Moor Bey-Razin Rose El, filed this case as an original action for
mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court on September 26, 2017.
(ECF No. 1-1.)
Respondents in this case removed the action from the Ohio Supreme Court to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a).
(ECF No. 1.)
After removal, Respondents Alan Koschik, Marie C. Randolph, and Teresa D. Underwood, of
the United States Bankruptcy Court, filed a Motion to Change Venue, requesting this case be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. (ECF No. 3.)
Respondent Keith Rucinksi also filed a Motion to Change Venue (ECF No. 9), which
incorporates the reasoning and arguments from the previously filed Motion by Respondents.
(ECF No. 3.)
Respondents removed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a), which requires removal
“to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place
wherein it is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a). Petitioners originally filed this action with the
Supreme Court of Ohio, located in Columbus, Ohio.
(See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.)
Thus, removal was proper to the Southern District of Ohio as it encompasses Columbus.
Although venue is typically governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391, “in determining the proper
venue of a removed action, ‘§ 1391 has no application.’” See Hart v. United States, No.
2:03-CV-1133, 2004 WL 1559569, at *7 (S.D. Ohio May 17, 2004) quoting Polizzi v.. Cowles
Magazines, 345 U.S. 663, 665 (1953). Instead, venue of removed cases is governed by removal
statutes 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441–1442. Hart, No. 2:03-CV-1133 at *7 (citing Kerobo v. Southwestern
Clean Fuels, Corp., 285 F.3d 531, 534 (6th Cir. 2002)). Thus, “both § 1441(a) and § 1442(a)
provide that the proper venue of a removed action is the district court of the United States for the
district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” Hart, No. 2:03-CV-1133
When venue is proper, a Court may transfer a case in the interests of justice pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) “for the convenience of parties and witnesses . . . to any other district . . .
where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
In doing so, several factors
influence the Court’s determination, such as “the private interests of the parties, including their
convenience and the convenience of potential witnesses, as well as other public-interest
concerns, such as systemic integrity and fairness.”
Moore v. Rohm & Haas Co., 446 F.3d 643,
647 n.1 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Moses v. Bus. Card Exp. Exp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1131, 1137 (6th
Analyzing these factors persuades the Court that transfer is appropriate. As a threshold matter,
this case could have originally been brought in the Northern District of Ohio. Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(3)(1), a civil action may be brought in a judicial district where a defendant resides, or a
substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.
Here, the federal respondents
reside in and conduct their official duties within the Northern District of Ohio, and the claims at
issue here arise out of the actions taken in the bankruptcy court for the Northern District of Ohio.
(Mot. to Transfer 2–3, ECF No. 3.)
Second, nearly all of the Respondents reside in or conduct
business in the Northern District of Ohio, and all of the events leading to Petitioners’ claims
occurred within the Northern District.
(Mot. to Transfer 2–3, ECF No. 3.)
It is likely that
witnesses to these events would also be found within the Northern District. Further, a related
case is currently pending in the Northern District of Ohio.
Thus, the interests of justice and
efficiency also weigh in favor of transfer to the Northern District of Ohio.
In sum, the Court finds that the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice
weigh in favor of transfer to the Northern District of Ohio.
to Transfer Venue (ECF Nos. 3 and 9) are GRANTED.
Accordingly, Respondents’ Motions
The Clerk is DIRECTED to
TRANSFER this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Chelsey M. Vascura
CHELSEY M. VASCURA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?