Lonergan v. Crisdel Group, Inc.
- Kevin Fox
- 1:21-cv-02374
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lonergan v. Crisdel Group, Judge Fox granted the parties’ joint motion to transfer the negligence case to New Jersey.
William Lonergan, Crisdel Group, Inc., and Kiewit Infrastructure Co.; the case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey.
What happened
William Lonergan brought a negligence action against Crisdel Group, Inc. and Kiewit Infrastructure Co. The defendants removed the case to federal court in New York, but the parties told the court that the events occurred on Ellis Island in New Jersey.
All parties, who were represented by lawyers, jointly asked to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. They filed their request as a letter-motion and did not discuss the usual factors courts consider when deciding whether a transfer is appropriate.
Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox granted the joint motion and directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The detailed version
- Lonergan v. Crisdel Group, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-02374
- Kevin Fox
- June 24, 2021
Background
William Lonergan brought a negligence action against Crisdel Group, Inc. and Kiewit Infrastructure Co. The defendants removed the action to the Southern District of New York under federal diversity-jurisdiction and removal statutes and then filed an answer. Lonergan informed the court that the events underlying the action occurred in New Jersey.
The parties jointly asked the court to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Their letter stated that the events occurred on Ellis Island in New Jersey and that all parties consented to the transfer. The opinion states that all parties were represented by counsel.
Legal standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a civil action for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Transfer is permitted to a district where the case could have been brought or to a district to which all parties have consented. Courts generally consider factors including witness and party convenience, access to evidence, the location of the events, the ability to compel unwilling witnesses, the parties’ relative means, familiarity with governing law, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, trial efficiency, and the interests of justice. The convenience of witnesses is traditionally the most important factor.
Court’s analysis and ruling
The court found that the action could have been brought in the District of New Jersey because the parties agreed that the events occurred on Ellis Island in New Jersey, within that district. The court also found that New Jersey appeared convenient because all parties jointly requested the transfer.
The court noted that the parties had used an improper letter-motion and had not addressed the factors ordinarily considered for a transfer. It nevertheless found that any challenge by the parties to the transfer order was waived. The court granted the parties’ joint motion to transfer venue, Docket Entry No. 23, and directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.