Sweigert v. Goodman

Background

D.G. Sweigert filed a 72-page amended complaint while proceeding without a lawyer. The complaint named Multimedia System Design, Inc., doing business as Crowdsource The Truth and 21st Century 3D, and George Webb Sweigert. It asserted eight causes of action against Multimedia System Design, including alleged misappropriation of publicity rights, disclosure of private facts and false light, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trade libel, false advertising under the Lanham Act, violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, defamation by implication, and vicarious liability.

The court described the allegations as confusing and convoluted. It said they centered on Jason Goodman, who was alleged to be the chief executive officer of Crowdsource The Truth, and involved alleged defamatory statements on podcasts and video-streaming platforms. The court found that the case involved the same general facts and people as a prior related proceeding that had been transferred to the Southern District of New York.

D.G. Sweigert had filed several motions concerning additional time to serve defendants, constructive service, and judicial notice of actions involving the defendants. Those motions remained pending when the court issued this order.

Transfer Analysis

The court considered federal venue-transfer rules. Under those rules, a civil case may be transferred to a district where it could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or the interests of justice. The court considered factors including witness convenience, access to evidence, the parties’ convenience, where the operative facts occurred, the availability of compulsory process, the parties’ relative resources, the forum’s familiarity with the governing law, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, trial efficiency, and the interests of justice.

The court concluded that transfer to the Southern District of New York was appropriate. It found that the alleged conduct occurred in connection with a service or podcasts located in New York, that the case shared the same general facts as the earlier New York litigation, and that most of the evidence, witnesses, and defendants appeared to be in New York or outside Michigan. The court also stated that the parties had already conceded personal jurisdiction in New York, while whether the Michigan court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants was unclear.

The court further held that it could transfer the action on its own initiative under the federal venue-transfer statutes, including the provision addressing cases filed in the wrong district. It concluded that proper venue lay in the Southern District of New York, where the court retained—and the defendants had already consented to—personal jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court transferred the matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It denied without prejudice all of D.G. Sweigert’s pending motions, meaning the motions were denied but the order did not bar them from being renewed. The court also ruled that its order to show cause was satisfied. The opinion did not decide the merits of D.G. Sweigert’s underlying claims.