P.C. v. Driscoll
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-02496
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In P.C. v. Driscoll, Judge Liman granted the parties’ request to transfer the entire case to the District of New Jersey.
P.C. and all defendants, because the entire action was ordered transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey.
What happened
P.C. v. Driscoll involves claims by P.C. against several defendants. On January 15, 2025, the court transferred P.C.’s claims against some defendants to the District of New Jersey after granting their motions based on improper venue. The case remained in New York as to two defendants who had not asked for a transfer.
P.C. then told the court that P.C. wanted the entire case transferred to New Jersey and that the defendants did not oppose that request. The court explained that federal law allows a case to be transferred for the convenience of the parties and witnesses when all parties agree.
The court granted the request and ordered the entire action transferred to the District of New Jersey. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order.
The detailed version
- P.C. v. Driscoll · No. 1:24-cv-02496
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 17, 2025
Background
P.C. sued Peter V. Driscoll, M.D.; Anthony R. Perkins, M.D.; Perkins Medical Care N.J., P.C.; Sergey Voskin, M.D.; Ella Voskrenskiy, also known as Ella Voskin; NYC Medical Practice, P.C., doing business as Goals Aesthetics & Plastic Surgery; and My Goals Solutions, Inc.
On January 15, 2025, the court granted motions filed by Perkins Medical Care N.J., P.C., Sergey Voskin, M.D., Ella Voskin, NYC Medical Practice, P.C., and My Goals Solutions, Inc. under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), which concerns improper venue. The court transferred P.C.’s claims against those defendants to the District of New Jersey instead of dismissing them. The court did not transfer the claims against Anthony R. Perkins, M.D., or Peter V. Driscoll, M.D., because those defendants had not moved to transfer or dismiss the case.
Current request
On January 17, 2025, P.C. informed the court that P.C. wanted the entire case transferred to the District of New Jersey. P.C. also reported that the defendants did not oppose transferring the entire case. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice when all parties consent.
Ruling
The court granted the parties’ request to transfer the case as a whole to the District of New Jersey. It directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action. This order addressed the case’s location and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.