­

John T. Reed' Change of Venue Motion against Russ Whitney suit against Reed in State court UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 03-60195-Civ 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 is still active. 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 are current or former employees of plaintiffs. 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. The greatest number of those witnesses are located in the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. 3. The principal connection between this controversy and the Southern District of Florida appears to be the location of Plaintiff' counsel. 4. 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 Court for the parties and necessary and proper witnesses to attend and 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, save for the state court characterization of the claim as tortious interference with a business relationship rather than trademark and libel. 5. After Defendant filed a Notice of Removal with this Court, Plaintiffs amended their state court complaint by adding the phrase ""¦but less than $75,000"¦" to the damages sought. 6. Mr. Rothstein left two messages on Defendant' answering machine over the President' Day Weekend demanding that Defendant agree to remand the case to the Broward County Court because of the phrase added to the amended complaint. 7. Defendant consulted an attorney and on the Tuesday after President' Day Weekend, Defendant went to the law library to research Rothstein' contention that his amendment compelled remand. Defendant found Rothstein' argument unpersuasive and left a message on Rothstein' answering machine on the evening of Tuesday, February 18, 2003 saying that he would oppose Rothstein' motion for remand. 8. On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, Rothstein left another message on Defendant' answering machine complaining Defendant had not returned his first call. Apparently Rothstein means by this that Defendant declined to argue the merits of Rothstein' proposed motion on the phone. 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. 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 and the prior Notice of Removal. February 25, 2003 ________________________________ 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 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 these same facts on June 25, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. That suit is still active. (A copy of it was attached to Defendant' February 12, 2003 Notice of Removal) In early January, 2003, Plaintiffs reportedly 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 "tortious 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. WASTE OF SCARCE JUDICIAL RESOURCES 4. In Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL (1960, 364 U.S. 19), Justice Black said, To permit a situation in which two cases involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously pending in different District Courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy, and money that '§1404(a) was designed to prevent. Speaking of Black' dictum, Moore' Federal Practice and Procedure, Jurisdiction '§3849 says, "One"¦element [that has] been considered by the courts relating to "the interest of justice""¦is the desire to avoid multiplicity of litigation from a single transaction"¦great weight should be given to this consideration." LOCATION OF COUNSEL NOT TO BE CONSIDERED 5. 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 6. "Probably 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 7. 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 8. 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. FORUM SHOPPING, HARASSMENT, AVOIDANCE OF F.R.C.P. 11 9. The purpose of bringing the second suit with identical parties and facts and a near identical legal theory is threefold: forum shopping, harassment, and avoidance of F.R.C.P. Rule 11. None of the other legitimate considerations warranting repetitive federal and state suits are present in this case. Any relief sought in the second action could have been obtained in the first. 10. Although Plaintiffs" counsel Scott Rothstein and Christina M. Kitterman have reportedly been counsel since early January, and Rothstein promised to file formal notification of the change of counsel in the Middle District, they have never filed that or any other paper requiring their signatures in Federal Court with regard to this dispute. In mid-January, 2003, Defendant notified Rothstein informally that he plans to file a Rule 11 motion with regard to the original filing of the Fort Myers suit and that Rothstein would not be included in that motion unless he filed any papers with the federal court echoing the Rule 11 violations in the original complaint. 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. February 25, 2003 ________________________________ 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
­