Glotser v. Boardwalk Regency, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-02654
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Glotser v. Boardwalk Regency, Judge Cronan granted defendants leave to seek transfer to New Jersey without deciding whether transfer should occur.
Boardwalk Regency, LLC received permission to file a motion seeking transfer to the District of New Jersey. Elena Glotser was given a deadline to oppose that motion. The case itself was not transferred by this order.
What happened
In Glotser, Elena Glotser alleges that she tripped and fell in a hotel room at Caesars Atlantic City in New Jersey and was injured because Boardwalk Regency, LLC negligently maintained its property. The case was filed in New York state court and later moved to the Southern District of New York.
Boardwalk asked to transfer the case to the federal court in New Jersey. It argued that the accident, witnesses, records, property, and governing law were connected to New Jersey, while New York’s main connection was Glotser’s address. The opinion does not show that the court decided those arguments.
Judge John P. Cronan treated Boardwalk’s filing as a request for permission to file a transfer motion and granted that permission. The court set deadlines for the motion, Glotser’s opposition, and any reply; it did not grant or deny the requested transfer itself.
The detailed version
- Glotser v. Boardwalk Regency, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-02654
- John Cronan
- Dec. 20, 2022
Background
Elena Glotser’s complaint alleges that she tripped and fell on June 13, 2018, at Boardwalk Regency, LLC’s property at Caesars Atlantic City in Atlantic City, New Jersey. She alleges that Boardwalk was negligent, careless, and reckless in owning, maintaining, and controlling the premises, causing serious and permanent injuries.
The case began in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, and was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The opinion identifies the federal docket number as 1:20-cv-02654-JPC-SLC.
Defendants’ proposed transfer
Boardwalk submitted a letter asking to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). That statute allows a federal court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice when the case could have been brought in the proposed federal district.
Boardwalk argued that New Jersey was the more convenient forum because the incident occurred there, Boardwalk’s property and operations were there, and relevant witnesses, records, and other evidence were located there. The letter identified Melbourne Pimenta as a principal defense witness and stated that Pimenta lived and worked in New Jersey. Boardwalk also argued that New Jersey had the most significant connection to the dispute and that New Jersey law should apply.
The letter further argued that Glotser would not be unduly burdened by litigating in New Jersey because she had traveled there for recreational activities for approximately 18 to 20 years, including on the date of the incident. These assertions were made in support of the proposed transfer; the court’s order did not decide whether they justified transfer.
Court’s action
The court construed Boardwalk’s submission as a pre-motion letter requesting permission to file a transfer motion under the court’s individual rules. After reviewing the letter and Glotser’s response, the court granted defendants leave to move to transfer to the District of New Jersey.
The court ordered that defendants’ motion was due January 10, 2023; Glotser’s opposition was due January 31, 2023; and defendants’ reply, if any, was due February 7, 2023. The order did not rule on the merits of the transfer request and did not transfer the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.