United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge
cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion to Substitute Proper Defendant and Motion to Transfer
Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (Doc. 19) (the
“Motion”). The Court, having considered the
Motion and being fully advised in the premises, will grant
Substitute Proper Defendant
seeks to substitute defendant “Badcock Economy
Furniture Inc., d/b/a Badcock & More of South
Florida” for current defendant “W.S. Badcock
Corporation d/b/a Badcock Home Furniture & More”
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Doc. 19 at
¶¶ 1-2. Under Rule 21, “[o]n motion or on its
own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a
party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. District courts have analyzed
motions under Rule 21 similar to motions under Rule 15.
Blaszkowski v. Natura Pet Prod., Inc., No.
07-21221-CIV, 2008 WL 11408621, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 8,
2008) (comparing Rules 15 and 21); Mora v. Nico's
Transportation, Inc., No. 08-20184-CIV, 2008 WL
11331726, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2008) (stating “the
standard for deciding a motion under [Rule] 15 or [Rule] 21
would be the same”).
to amend may be denied based on undue delay, undue prejudice
to the defendant(s), and futility of the amendment.
Maynard v. Bd. of Regents of the Div. of Univs. of the
Fla. Dep't. of Educ., 342 F.3d 1281, 1287 (11th Cir.
2003) (discussing Rule 15). In addition, in considering
amendment, district courts must consider the requirements of
Rule 16(b)(4), which provides that a Case Management and
Scheduling Order “may be modified only for good cause
and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
16(b)(4); Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d
1417, 1418-19 (11th Cir. 1998). Thus, a movant seeking leave
to amend after the deadline must show good cause by
demonstrating that despite their diligence, the deadline
could not be met. Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1419.
deadline to file motions to add parties or to amend pleadings
in this case was November 15, 2019. Doc. 14. The Motion,
filed December 23, 2019, seeks to substitute defendants based
upon Plaintiff's determination of the proper defendant
through discovery and investigation of the facts of this
case. Id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff has established
good cause. Moreover, Defendant does not oppose the Motion.
Therefore, the Court will grant the Motion, allowing
Plaintiff to add “Badcock Economy Furniture Inc., d/b/a
Badcock & More of South Florida” and to drop
“W.S. Badcock Corporation d/b/a Badcock Home Furniture
district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district court where it might have been originally filed, in
view of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in
the interests of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A court
must consider two issues to determine whether transferring
venue is appropriate: 1) whether the action might have been
brought in the venue to which transfer is sought; and 2)
whether various factors are satisfied to determine if
transfer to a more convenient forum is justified. Thermal
Techs., Inc. v. Dade Serv. Corp., 282 F.Supp.2d 1373,
1376 (S.D. Fla. 2003).
the court considers in determining the propriety of transfer
(1) the convenience of the witnesses; (2) the location of
relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources
of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus
of operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel
the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means
of the parties; (7) a forum's familiarity with the
governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff's
choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests
of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances.
Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 n.1
(11th Cir. 2005).
Plaintiff seeks to transfer the case to the Southern District
of Florida, Miami Division on the basis that the proper
defendant is located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Doc. 19
at p. 2. Plaintiff also alleges that the violations pertinent
to this case occurred in the Southern District of Florida and
that the Southern District of Florida is in close proximity
and convenient to all parties, witnesses and relevant
documents held by the proper defendant.
on the Motion, it appears the Southern District of Florida is
a venue in which this action could have been brought and that
the convenience of the witnesses, location of relevant
documents, convenience of the parties, and locus of operative
facts all weigh in favor of transfer. Moreover, the Motion is
unopposed. Accordingly, the case will be transferred to the
Southern District of Florida.
foregoing reasons, the Motion is granted.