TRUMP v. SIMON & SCHUSTER INC
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:23-cv-06883
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 23
In Trump v. Simon & Schuster Inc., Judge Rodgers transferred the case to New York because Florida was improper and inconvenient, without deciding the dismissal motion.
The ruling moved Donald J. Trump’s case against Robert Woodward, Simon & Schuster, Inc., and Paramount Global from the Northern District of Florida to the Southern District of New York. It did not resolve the underlying claims or the separate motion arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim.
What happened
In Trump v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., Donald J. Trump alleged that Robert Woodward, Simon & Schuster, Inc., and Paramount Global improperly used and altered recordings of interviews for The Trump Tapes. The defendants asked the court to dismiss or transfer the case and separately asked for dismissal because the complaint allegedly did not state a valid claim.
The court concluded that the Northern District of Florida was not the proper venue. The interviews, alleged manipulation, and related work occurred elsewhere, and the defendants’ sales and marketing contacts with Florida were not enough. The court also found that the parties, witnesses, and important events had stronger connections to New York and Washington, D.C.
Judge M. Casey Rodgers granted the defendants’ motion to the extent it sought transfer and directed the case to be transferred to the Southern District of New York. The court did not decide the separate motion challenging the complaint; that motion will be considered by the transferee court.
The detailed version
- TRUMP v. SIMON & SCHUSTER INC · No. 1:23-cv-06883
- Paul Gardephe
- Aug. 4, 2023
Background
Donald J. Trump sued Robert Woodward, professionally known as Bob Woodward, Simon & Schuster, Inc., and Paramount Global. Trump alleged that he gave Woodward 19 recorded interviews between December 2019 and August 2020 for Woodward’s book Rage. According to the amended complaint, the defendants later published the interviews as The Trump Tapes in audiobook and other formats without Trump’s consent for that separate use and manipulated the recordings.
The amended complaint asserted claims involving copyright ownership, an accounting, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The defendants filed one motion seeking dismissal or transfer based on improper venue, or transfer to a more convenient forum. They also filed a separate motion seeking dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Venue Analysis
The court held that the special copyright venue statute did not apply because Trump’s copyright count sought a declaration about copyright ownership rather than relief for copyright infringement. The court therefore applied the general federal venue statute.
The court concluded that venue was improper in the Northern District of Florida. None of the defendants resided there, and none of the interviews, alleged manipulation, or other relevant work occurred there. The defendants’ marketing, sales, and distribution of books in Florida did not establish that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in that district.
The court also considered transfer under the statute allowing a court to move a case from a permissible but inconvenient venue. It found that the witness-convenience, party-convenience, location-of-events, subpoena, and interests-of-justice factors favored transfer or did not weigh against it. The relevant events and likely witnesses were principally connected to Washington, D.C., or New York, while the Northern District of Florida had no comparable connection to the dispute.
Ruling
The court held that venue in the Northern District of Florida was wrong and improper and that the interests of justice favored transfer rather than dismissal. It also held that transfer would be appropriate even if venue were technically proper but inconvenient.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer venue, to the extent it sought transfer, and directed the Clerk to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The separately filed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was not decided and was to carry with the case for resolution by the transferee court. Judge M. Casey Rodgers therefore resolved venue and convenience only, not whether Trump’s claims stated legally sufficient causes of action.
Read the full 23-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.