United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
C. BUCKLEW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration (Doc. No. 29) of Judge Chappell's order
(Doc. No. 24) transferring this case to the Tampa Division.
Upon consideration, Plaintiff's motion is denied.
Collectarius Financial, LLC alleges the following in its
complaint (Doc. No. 2): Defendant Statebridge Company, LLC is
indebted to the Law Offices of Damian G. Waldman P.A. for
legal services (“the Waldman debt”). Plaintiff
now owns the Waldman debt due to an assignment. As a result,
Defendant owes Plaintiff $429, 547.75 due to the Waldman
filed suit against Defendant in state court in Lee County,
Florida. In its complaint, Plaintiff asserts three claims:
(1) open account, (2) unjust enrichment, and (3) account
stated. Defendant removed the case to the Fort Myers Division
of this Court.
removal, the district court questioned whether diversity
jurisdiction existed, because it did not have sufficient
information to determine the citizenship of the limited
liability company parties. (Doc. No. 4). Almost two weeks later,
on December 26, 2017, Defendant filed a motion to transfer
this case to the Tampa Division. (Doc. No. 10).
motion to transfer, Defendant argued that the case had no
nexus to the Fort Myers Division beyond the fact that
Plaintiff was located there. Defendant pointed out that the
Waldman debt at issue originated from legal services provided
from the law firm's Pinellas County office, which is
located within the Tampa Division of the Middle District of
Florida. Defendant argued that the Waldman law firm would
have the witnesses and documents that would be essential to
the case and that the Waldman law firm is located more than
100 miles away from the Fort Myers' courthouse, making it
difficult to demand attendance at trial.
response to the motion to transfer was due on January 9,
2018. Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion. On January
12, 2018, Judge Chappell granted Defendant's motion to
transfer the case to the Tampa Division. (Doc. No. 24). The
case was transferred to the Tampa Division, and the Fort
Myers case was closed on January 17, 2018 at 11:28 a.m.
Almost four hours later, Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration in the Fort Myers Division, which Judge
Chappell denied as moot, since the case had already been
transferred. On January 19, 2018, Plaintiff re-filed
the motion for reconsideration with this Court in the Tampa
Standard of Review
are three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability
of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or
to prevent manifest injustice. Sussman v. Salem, Saxon
& Nielsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla.
1994)(citations omitted). The Court notes that
reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary
remedy to be employed sparingly. See id. (citations
Motion for Reconsideration
motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff states that it did not
respond to the motion to transfer, because it was waiting on
the Fort Myers Court's decision as to whether diversity
jurisdiction existed. Plaintiff states that it feared that if
it had responded to the motion, such could be construed as
seeking “affirmative relief from the Court, which would
automatically avail the Plaintiff in the jurisdiction of this
Court.” (Doc. No. 29, p. 2). It appears to this Court
that Plaintiff does not understand the difference between
diversity subject matter jurisdiction (which cannot be
created by seeking relief from a court, nor can it be created
by the agreement of the parties) and personal jurisdiction
(which currently exists over the parties regardless of
Plaintiff's participation in this case).
accepting Plaintiff's reason for failing to respond to
the motion, Plaintiff does not explain why the motion to
transfer should not have been granted. Instead, Plaintiff
argues that venue was proper in the Fort Myers Division.
While that may be true, Plaintiff does not address whether
the case was properly transferred based on Local Rule 1.02
(allowing transfer to the division with the greatest nexus to
the case) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (allowing transfer for
the convenience of the parties and witnesses). Plaintiff
simply states that Plaintiff's principal office is in
Fort Myers and all of its witnesses are located in Fort
Myers. Plaintiff fails to address that non-party witness the
Law Offices of Damian G. Waldman P.A. is located in the Tampa
Division, that relevant documents are located in the Tampa
Division, and that the operative facts giving rise to the
Waldman debt arose in the Tampa Division. Accordingly, the
Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to show that
reconsideration is warranted.
IV.Pending Motion to ...