Wieder v. Advanced Bionics LLC
- 1:24-cv-08495
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wieder v. Advanced Bionics LLC, the court denied reassignment to White Plains and set deadlines for amendment and dismissal briefing.
Feige Wieder and the other plaintiffs, and Advanced Bionics LLC, because the case will remain assigned to the Manhattan courthouse and the order sets deadlines for a possible amended complaint and motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Wieder v. Advanced Bionics LLC, Advanced Bionics asked to have the case reassigned from the Manhattan courthouse to a courthouse in White Plains. The plaintiffs had chosen Manhattan, which the court said they were allowed to do.
The court found that the applicable district rules did not require reassignment. It also said that, even under the standards used for ordinary transfers between federal courts, the short distance between the courthouses, electronic documents, and the lack of a difference in witness-compulsion procedures did not justify reassignment.
The court denied the request to reassign the case to White Plains. It did not decide the motion to dismiss; instead, it ordered the plaintiffs to file any amended complaint by February 25, 2025, and directed Advanced Bionics to file any motion to dismiss by March 18, 2025. The order was issued by the court; the judge’s name is not legible in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Wieder v. Advanced Bionics LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08495
- Feb. 11, 2025
Background
Advanced Bionics requested that the case be reassigned to a judge at the White Plains Courthouse. The plaintiffs had designated the Manhattan courthouse. The order also addressed the anticipated motion to dismiss and the possibility that the plaintiffs would file an amended complaint.
Reassignment request
The court held that the plaintiffs were permitted to designate Manhattan because the claim did not arise, in whole or major part, in one of the Northern Counties identified by the district’s courthouse-assignment rules. Although the rules allowed the plaintiffs to designate White Plains, they did not require that choice. The court therefore concluded that the rules did not authorize reassignment under the provision cited by the defendant.
The defendant also invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1404(c), a federal transfer provision. The court said it was unclear what standards should govern a within-division reassignment under that subsection. Even assuming that the factors used for transfers under § 1404(a) applied, the court found reassignment unwarranted. The plaintiffs’ forum choice was entitled to some deference; electronic documents reduced the importance of document location; the courthouses’ proximity did not strongly favor convenience; the parties’ relative financial means were not significant because of that proximity; and the courthouses did not differ in their ability to compel unwilling witnesses to attend.
Amendment and motion-to-dismiss schedule
The order stated that the plaintiffs potentially intended to file an amended complaint. Because Advanced Bionics had identified its arguments concerning alleged defects in the complaint, the court directed the plaintiffs to file any amended complaint before seeking permission to amend during briefing on the motion to dismiss.
Ruling
The motion to reassign the case to a judge in White Plains was denied. The plaintiffs were ordered to file any amended complaint by February 25, 2025. Any motion to dismiss was due by March 18, 2025, with later briefing governed by the court’s individual practices. The order did not rule on the merits of a motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.