Ortiz-Lopez et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part 13 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; noted and denied 17 Motion for Leave to File. Case to be transferred to district of New Jersey for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Jay A. Garcia-Gregory on 6/9/2014. (RJC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

LUIS N. ORITZ-LOPEZ,
GLENDA LIZ BAEZ ACOSTA, et
al.,
CIVIL NO. 13-1527(JAG)

Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al.,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the United States’ (“Defendant”) Motion
to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to Transfer Venue. For the
reasons

stated

below,

the

Court

transfers

this

case

to

the

District Court of New Jersey and denies the motion to dismiss.
BACKGROUND
On July 5, 2013, Plaintiffs Ortiz-Lòpez and Glenda Liz Baez
Acosta brought suit in this district against the United States
and

several

of

its

officers

(“Defendants”).

Plaintiffs

claim

that Defendants discriminated against  Plaintiff Ortiz-Lòpez due
to his national origin as a Puerto Rican during a job interview.
Plaintiffs charge Defendants with violations of Title VII of the

Civil Case No. 13-1527 (JAG)

2

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Federal Tort Claims
Act

(“FTCA”),

a

deprivation

of

due

process

under

the

Constitution, and other claims. (See Docket No. 3, ¶¶ 2-4).
Defendants now move the Court to dismiss this case for
failure to state a claim, or for a transfer of venue to the
District

of

New

Jersey.

Because

Title

VII

contains

specific

directives concerning venue that compel a transfer of this case
to

New

Jersey,

the

Court

declines

to

address

Defendants’

arguments on the merits. 
ANALYSIS
Actions filed under Title VII “may be brought [1] in any
judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment
practice is alleged to have been committed, [2] in the judicial
district

in

which

the

employment

records

relevant

to

such

practice are maintained and administered, or [3] in the judicial
district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for
the

alleged

unlawful

employment

practice….”

42

U.S.C.

2000e-

5(f)(3). If the Title VII claim is brought in an improper venue,
the court has discretion either to dismiss the claim or transfer
it to a proper district. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see e.g. Dixon v.
Brownlee, 313 F.Supp.2d 52 (D.P.R. 2004)(granting defendant’s
motion to transfer venue when plaintiff failed to satisfy any of
the options for venue provided for by 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(3)).

Civil Case No. 13-1527 (JAG)

Defendant

correctly

3

contends

that

Plaintiff’s

Title

VII

claims cannot be heard in Puerto Rico. In a nutshell, the job
interview that is at the heart of Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in
New

Jersey.

counterargument.

Plaintiffs
The

fail

Court

to

finds,

provide

therefore,

a

convincing

that

justice

is

best served by transferring Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims to the
district of New Jersey. The question remains whether Plaintiffs’
other claims should follow.
This question is answered by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Under
this analysis, the court considers both the convenience of the
parties and witnesses, as well as the interests of justice. See
e.g., Astro-med, Inv. V. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1, 12
(1st Cir. 2009); Coady v. Ashcraft & Gerel, 223 F.3d 1, 11 (1st
Cir. 2000). Further considerations include the “availability of
documents [and] the possibility of consolidation.” Coady, 223
F.3d at 11 (citing Cianbro Corp. V. Curran-Lavoie, Inc., 814
F.2d 7, 11 (1st Cir. 1987)).
When

assessing

whether

the

transfer

would

be

more

convenient for the parties and witnesses, there is a general
desire

to

transaction

hear
or

together

those

occurrence.

See

claims
Canales

arising
v.

from

Univ.

of

the

same

Phoenix,

Inc., No. 2:11-CV-00181, 2012 WL 2499019, at *5 (D. Me. June 27,
2012)(“It is manifestly more convenient to hold one trial in one

Civil Case No. 13-1527 (JAG)

district

on

similar

4

facts

than

to

hold

two

trials

in

two

districts.”). This factor clearly favors transfer, as all of
Plaintiffs’ claims stem from the job interview.
On

the

other

hand,

when

assessing

whether

the

transfer

would be in the interests of justice, the court looks to hear
“related litigation together, having a judge who is familiar
with the applicable law, and the efficient functioning of the
courts.”

Mercado-Salinas

v.

Bart

Enters.

Inter.,

Ltd.,

669

F.Supp.2d 176, 189 (D.P.R. 2009). Here, there is no particularly
good reason to split this litigation in two. To hear the same
facts from the same parties, most of whom live in New Jersey,
simultaneously

in

two

distant

courts

would

only

sacrifice

judicial efficiency and increase litigation costs for everyone
involved.

In

addition,

because

Plaintiff’s

tort

claims

are

grounded on New Jersey law, the New Jersey court would have an
efficiency advantage due to familiarity when compared to this
Court.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby TRANSFERS all
claims

to

the

District

Court

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

of

New

Jersey

and

DENIES

Civil Case No. 13-1527 (JAG)

5

In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 9th day of June, 2014.
s/ Jay A. Garcia-Gregory
JAY A. GARCIA-GREGORY
United States District Judge