Krizek v. The Queens Medical Center

Background

Helena Krizek filed the lawsuit while representing herself. She alleged that she was the birth mother of Bianca Krizek, that Bianca died while being treated at The Queens Medical Center, and that the defendants acted together in an alleged scheme targeting Bianca for organ harvesting. The complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, as well as conspiracy to commit medical fraud and gross negligence.

The defendants included The Queens Medical Center, several doctors and lawyers, Krizek’s former attorneys, organizations, the Hawaii Department of Health, and Dr. Christopher Happy, identified as the medical examiner for the City of Honolulu. The Hospital Defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

Arguments and analysis

Krizek filed submissions labeled as opposition to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court read those filings broadly as arguing that the defendants had waived any challenge to venue by filing a motion under Rule 12(b). The court rejected that argument because the defendants raised venue in a pre-answer motion. It also stated that, even if they had waived a venue objection, they could still seek transfer under § 1404(a).

The court determined that Hawaii was the proper venue under the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The complaint alleged that most defendants were Hawaii entities or people employed by the medical center or the City of Honolulu, and that the remaining lawyer defendants were licensed to practice law in Hawaii and had represented the medical center, its employees, or Krizek in an earlier related proceeding. Based on those allegations, the court inferred that all defendants were or had been residents of Hawaii. The complaint also alleged that all events involved in the case occurred in Hawaii. The summons listed Hawaii addresses for every defendant except Dr. Happy, whose address was in Los Angeles, California.

The court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York because Krizek did not allege that all defendants resided in New York with at least one residing in that district, or that a substantial part of the events occurred there.

The court separately held that transfer was appropriate even if venue had been proper in New York. In applying § 1404(a), it considered the convenience of the parties and witnesses, the location of the events, access to documents and other evidence, the governing law, Krizek’s choice of forum, and the overall interest of justice. It found that the events occurred in Hawaii, nearly all defendants resided there, Hawaii law would govern many claims, and relevant documents and witnesses were likely located there. It gave Krizek’s choice of New York little weight because the relevant conduct had no connection to that district.

Disposition

The court granted the Hospital Defendants’ motion to transfer venue. It directed the clerk to transfer the action to the District of Hawaii and close the case. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion decided the forum for the case; it did not decide whether Krizek’s underlying claims were legally or factually valid.