Cunningham v. Big Think Capital, Inc.

Background

Craig Cunningham, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued Big Think Capital, Inc., Dan Israel, and unidentified defendants. He alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, related federal regulations, and a provision of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. The opinion states that Big Think is a New York corporation headquartered in Suffolk County and that Israel resides in Plainview, New York, in Nassau County. The unidentified defendants had not been identified.

The court had previously directed Cunningham to explain why the case should remain in the Southern District of New York rather than be transferred. Cunningham opposed transfer. The defendants supported transfer and also anticipated filing a motion to dismiss or transfer venue. The opinion notes that Cunningham was also litigating another related matter in the Eastern District of New York with a lawyer and as a class action.

Venue Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal district court may transfer a civil action to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court considered the relevant venue factors, including the plaintiff’s choice of forum, witness convenience, access to documents and other evidence, party convenience, the location of the events, the ability to require unwilling witnesses to attend, and the parties’ relative resources.

The court concluded that the Eastern District of New York was more appropriate. Big Think was headquartered there, and Israel resided there. The Southern District of New York was neither Cunningham’s home district nor the place where the events underlying his claims occurred. Although Cunningham argued that venue was proper in the Southern District because Big Think had previously maintained an address for service of process there, he acknowledged that the Eastern District was also a proper venue. The court was persuaded by the location of relevant documents and witnesses and found that transfer would not prejudice Cunningham, who resided in Texas and had shown a willingness to litigate in the Eastern District.

The opinion also explains that the court declined to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas because Cunningham had filed notice in a separate related matter seeking voluntary dismissal without prejudice there. The court therefore focused on transfer to the Eastern District of New York.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Judge Katherine Polk Failla also denied Cunningham’s motion for entry of default against Dan Israel, without prejudice to renewing that motion in the Eastern District of New York after the transfer. The order did not decide the merits of Cunningham’s statutory or state-law claims.