Luo v. Schedule A - Entry 47
Uploaded by
Sarah BursteinLuo v. Schedule A - Entry 47
Uploaded by
Sarah BursteinCase 8:24-cv-00615-TPB-CPT Document 47 Filed 05/29/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID 341
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
YU LUO,
Case No.: 8:24-cv-00615
Plaintiff,
Judge Thomas P. Barber
v.
Magistrate Judge
THE PARTNERSHIPS AND Christopher P. Tuite
UNINCORPORATED
ORGANIZATIONS
IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Plaintiff hereby presents this motion to transfer venue in this case,
having one (1) remaining defendant listed on the Schedule A, ‘AOCAN’ (aka
Yong Kang Shi Rui Yao Gong Mao You Xiang Gongsi). All other defendants
on Plaintiff’s Schedule A have been voluntary dismissed, or dismissal is
pending, following settlements.1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), transfer of venue may be appropriate for
the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district
1
As of the presentation of this motion, settlement terms have been reached
with Binazon (aka, DongGuan Shi ZhiYang Technology Co., Ltd.), but they
have not yet been dismissed.
Case 8:24-cv-00615-TPB-CPT Document 47 Filed 05/29/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID 342
court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties
have consented. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Middle District of Florida has
stated that seven (7) factors must be considered in the transfer of venue,
which are plaintiff's initial choice of forum, convenience of the parties and
witnesses, relative ease of access to sources of proof, availability of
compulsory process for witnesses, location of relative documents, financial
ability to bear the cost of the change, and all other practical problems that
make trial of the case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Manitowoc Co. v.
Reuther, No. 8:15-cv-559-T-33MAP, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2015).
In the present case, as previously discussed with this Court, a sister
action involving the same subject matter (infringement of design patent No.
D1,012,683 (**683)) was filed with the Northern District of Illinois (24-cv-
1977 (*1977)). As of this memo, there are 9 remaining defendants in the
1977 case, while 1 defendant remains in this case. Plaintiff believes transfer
of venue of this case to the Northern District of Illinois would be
appropriately in line with 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff will then take
subsequent action in the Northern District of Illinois, including joining the
1 remaining defendant from this case into *1977.
Applying the 7 factors, one, whereas the Middle District of Florida
2
Case 8:24-cv-00615-TPB-CPT Document 47 Filed 05/29/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID 343
was Plaintiff’s choice of forum initially, and successful based upon the
number of settlements and voluntary dismissals, because there are only 2
remaining defendants, transfer to Northern District of Illinois where there
are 12 defendants may be appropriate in conserving resources. It would be
more convenient for Plaintiff to continue its action against these 2
remaining defendants, along with the 9 defendants in the *1977 case.
Plaintiff believes the 1 remaining defendant will also find it more
convenient to litigate along with the larger number of defendants in Illinois.
Lastly, consolidation will conserve the larger resources of the federal
judiciary, at least between the Middle District of Florida and the Northern
District of Illinois.
DATED: May 29, 2024 Respectfully Submitted:
_______________________
Robert M. DeWitty
Attorney, Plaintiff Luo
1500 K Street, 2nd Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
tele: 202 571 7070
email: [email protected]
