Baker v. Bensalz Productions, Inc.

Background

Belinda Baker, Starborne Productions, LLC, and Starbreacher Enterprises, LLC sued Bensalz Productions, Inc. and Excel Sports Management, LLC in the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached contractual agreements and that a Bensalz employee sexually assaulted Baker. The plaintiffs initially litigated without lawyers, but an attorney later entered an appearance.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which concerns personal jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court previously ruled that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants and therefore did not decide whether the amended complaint stated a claim. It dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiffs’ Motion

The plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its dismissal or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York. They relied on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1631. Section 1631 provides that when a court finds that it lacks jurisdiction, it must transfer the action to a court where it could have been brought if transferring the case would serve the interests of justice.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ request should be denied because they had not shown grounds for reconsideration and had waived any request for transfer by failing to raise it earlier. The defendants also argued that the request was untimely.

Analysis

The court concluded that it could consider the transfer request. It reasoned that Section 1631’s mandatory language weighed against finding a waiver based only on the plaintiffs’ failure to raise the issue sooner. The court also stated that, even if the right to request a transfer could be waived, a court could consider the issue when appropriate.

The court then found that transferring the case was in the interests of justice. It found no indication that the plaintiffs had intentionally abused the judicial process by filing in Ohio. The plaintiffs had initially proceeded without lawyers, resided in Ohio, and had at least some basis for believing that jurisdiction existed. The court also found that the jurisdictional question was not straightforward.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and ordered the clerk to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York. The court explained that the transfer would leave the plaintiffs in the position they would have occupied had they originally filed in that district. The court expressed no opinion on whether the claims were timely or had merit.