­

John T. Reed' motion to change the venue of Whitney vs. Reed from Fort Lauderdale to Fort Myers UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 03-60195-Civ-MARRA/SELTZER Case No. 03-60597-Civ-MARRA/SELTZER WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC., a Florida Corporation, and RUSS WHITNEY, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN T. REED, an individual, Defendant. MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FOR CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE UNDER 28 U.S.C. '§1404(a) BY DEFENDANT Defendant John T. Reed, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. '§1404(a), hereby moves the Court to transfer this cause for trial to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, and as his grounds, states as follows: 1. These same plaintiffs brought another cause on these same facts against this same defendant in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division on June 25, 2002. That case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on May 5, 2003. 2. Substantially all of the books, records, documents, witnesses, and exhibits in connection with the matters in controversy are located in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division and defendant' district, the Northern District of California. The greatest concentration of witnesses thus far named are current or former employees of plaintiffs. The greatest number of those witnesses are located in the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. 3. Plaintiff Russ Whitney lives in Cape Coral, Florida. Plaintiffs" principal place of business is now in Cape Coral, Florida in the Fort Myers Division and has been there throughout the events that are the subject matter of this controversy. 4. The sole known connection between this controversy and the Southern District of Florida appears to be the location of Plaintiff' counsel. 5. During the course of this litigation, Defendant will likely be required to visit the Fort Myers area to

interview witnesses, attend depositions, and to research Plaintiffs" business dealings and court records that have been created in the 23 years they have been in the Fort Myers area. Defendant has no reason to visit the Fort Lauderdale area other than the fact that Plaintiffs have hired an attorney there. If the case is moved to Fort Myers, all concerned will be able to accomplish multiple related tasks during a single visit and can avoid the extra time consumption and expense of traveling to Fort Lauderdale. 6. The trial of the controversies in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division would be a more convenient one than the Southern District for the parties and necessary and proper witnesses to attend. A trial in that District would minimize costs and travel time for all concerned. A trial in the Fort Myers Division would also be in the interest of justice and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division is a court where this action might have originally been brought and, indeed, was brought. Except for the assertion of a tortious interference claim instead of libel, trade libel, and trademark infringement, the present suit is mostly a cut-and-paste, verbatim copy of the original Fort Myers suit. The original Fort Myers suit had progressed into the discovery phase at the time it was withdrawn. Accordingly, transfer would also serve the interests of judicial economy. 7. Defendant has conferred by telephone with Christina Kitterman, counsel for Plaintiff in a good faith effort to resolve the matters at issue but was unable to do so. Defendant had previously discussed with Plaintiff' counsel Scott Rothstein moving the case to Fort Myers before the Honorable Patricia Seitz of the Miami Division indicated she was inclined to move it to theNorthern District of California in San Francisco. Mr. Rothstein indicated no disagreement with a move to Fort Myers at the time. Now Ms. Kitterman says they oppose it. 8. Defendant does not seek any extension of the two deadlines set by this court for responding to the complaints or filing a case management report. The parties can comply with those deadlines in Fort Myers as well as they can in Fort Lauderdale. Defendant will file his responses to the complaints by the deadline already ordered by this Court while this motion for Change of Venue is pending. 9. Although this case has been in the Southern District for some time, the delays have been caused by Plaintiff' actions not Defendant', namely: "¢' filing a second suit in Broward County instead of amending the Fort Myers federal complaint "¢' filing an Amended Complaint in Broward County "¢' filing an emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Broward County "¢ filing a third suit in Miami federal court instead of amending the Fort Myers complaint "¢' filing a Motion for Remand in Fort Lauderdale, which motion was later withdrawn by Plaintiffs "¢' filing two Motions for an Extension of Time "¢ demanding that Defendant file an opposed Motion for Leave to Supplement his opposition to remand then responding to the Court that Plaintiffs did not oppose that motion after all "¢' filing an Amended Complaint in Miami federal court 10. In an attempt to get this case moving, Defendant filed a Motion for a Scheduling Conference on June 11, 2003. 11. In the original Fort Myers case, the Court issued a an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff' failure to prosecute. 12. In that original Fort Myers case, the Defendant also filed a motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the case management order.. The Fort Myers Court denied that motion, but scheduled a hearing at which the Honorable Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier indicated he would issue a revised case management schedule. Within minutes of the end of that telephonic hearing, plaintiffs telephoned Defendant and announced that they were withdrawing their Fort Myers complaint voluntarily. 13. Although a considerable amount of time has elapsed since Defendant removed this case to the Fort Lauderdale court, relatively little has taken place in the Court. The almost identical Fort Myers case had progressed beyond answer, case management schedule, and exchange of initial disclosures. Accordingly, the litigation will likely not be delayed in the slightest by a transfer to the Fort Myers division. It is possible that Plaintiffs have been deliberately engaging in various delaying actions in Fort Lauderdale and Miami in order to claim now that the case has been there so long that normal considerations of convenience of the witnesses and the interests of justices are outweighed by the duration the case has been in the Southern District. Such behavior, if it occurred, should be sanctioned, not rewarded. 14. Plaintiffs are either defendants or plaintiffs in a number of similar suits in the Fort Myers federal court. Plaintiffs may be deliberately filing suits in various venues to conceal from the judiciary a pattern of vexatious litigation and the improper use of litigation to harrass and intimidate honest critics. The Fort Myers court has one judge and magistrate, so judicial economy and the interests of justice would be served by having that judge and magistrate hear all the various related Whitney cases. A memorandum of law is attached to this motion in support of this Motion. Wherefore, defendant prays that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. There was no good faith basis for Plaintiffs to have filed the second and third lawsuits in the Southern District of Florida. They could have and should have amended their Fort Myers complaint. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests the Court sanction Plaintiffs and order them to pay the costs of this motion and the prior Notice of Removal. March 9, 2004 ________________________________ Date John T. Reed, pro se Defendant John T. Reed Publishing 342 Bryan Drive, Alamo, CA 94507 925-820-6292, Fax: 925-820-1259 www.johntreed.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 03-60195-Civ-MARRA/SELTZER Case No. 03-60597-Civ-MARRA/SELTZER WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC., a Florida Corporation, and RUSS WHITNEY, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. JOHN T. REED, an individual, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE FOR CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE UNDER 28 U.S.C. '§1404(a) BY DEFENDANT OVERVIEW 1. These same plaintiffs sued this same defendant on June 25, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. (A copy of it was attached to Defendant' February 12, 2003 Notice of Removal) In early January, 2003, Plaintiffs changed attorneys. On January 29, 2003, the plaintiffs" new attorneys filed an almost identical suit [Case No. CACE 03-01788(21)] in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida on January 29, 2003. (A copy of it was attached to Defendant' February 12, 2003 Notice of Removal) 2. The original suit in the Fort Myers federal court alleged trademark infringement including violation of the federal Lanham Act, which the complaint cited as the basis for federal jurisdiction. That suit also alleged common law trademark and unfair competition as well as libel and trade libel claims under Florida law. The suit filed in Broward County is a cut-and-paste copy of the federal suit differing mainly only in its failure to mention the federal Lanham Act and its characterization of the trademark and libel claims as "œtortious interference with a business relationship." 3. On February 12, 2003, defendant filed a Notice of Removal in this Court to remove the state court suit to this Court. LOCATION OF COUNSEL NOT TO BE CONSIDERED 4. The sole reason this case is in the Southern District appears to be the location of Plaintiffs" counsel. It is well settled that this should not be given any weight. (Poncy v. Johnson & Johnson, DC Fla 1976 414 F. Supp. 551) Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves apparently gave it no weight in June of 2002. Plaintiffs" original counsel, Louis Gigliotti, also had his place of business in Fort Lauderdale when he filed the original suit in the Middle District, Fort Myers Division. CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES 5. "œProbably the most important factor and the factor most frequently mentioned in passing on a motion to transfer under 28 USC 1404(a) is the convenience of witnesses." Moore' Federal Practice and Procedure, Jurisdiction '§3851. (Saminsky v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., DCNY 1974 373 F. Supp. 257) Most of the proper and necessary witnesses in this case are the parties, their current and former employees, and plaintiffs" customers and prospective customers. Plaintiffs" current and prospective customers are scattered in every district in the United States as well as in Canada and the United Kingdom. However, Plaintiffs" current and former employees are concentrated in the vicinity of Plaintiffs" place of business which is in the Fort Myers Division. LOCATION OF RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS 6. As with Plaintiffs" employees, their records and documents are also located in the Fort Myers Division. This should be considered by the Court in determining the proper forum. (Mobil Corp. v. S.E.C., DCNY 1982 550 F. Supp. 67) CHANGE OF VENUE WILL NOT INCONVENIENCE THE PLAINTIFFS 7. The requested change of venue will aid all witnesses and Defendant and will not be less convenient than the Southern District of Florida for Plaintiffs, who live and have their principal place of business in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. For the reasons stated above, this court should transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Because there is no good faith basis for Plaintiffs to have filed the second suit in the first place, Defendant respectfully requests the Court sanction Plaintiffs and order them to pay the costs of this motion. March 9, 2004 ________________________________ Date John T. Reed, pro se Defendant John T. Reed Publishing 342 Bryan Drive, Alamo, CA 94507 925-820-6292, Fax: 925-820-1259 www.johntreed.com John T. Reed on real-estate-investment information John T. Reed, a.k.a. John Reed, Jack Reed, 342 Bryan Drive, Alamo, CA 94507, Voice: 925-820-7262, Fax: 925-820-1259, www.johntreed.com

Log in to comment
­