Fort v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs et al, No. 3:2020cv01089 - Document 45 (D.P.R. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: finding as moot 40 Motion to Appoint Counsel; granting 42 Motion requesting Order; denying without prejudice 19 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying without prejudice 22 Motion for Leave to File; denying without prejudice 23 Motion to Stay; denying without prejudice 25 Motion for Leave to File. The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this case to the District of New Jersey and then close this case. Signed by Judge Silvia L. Carreno-Coll on 02/04/2022. (MRB)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fort v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs et al Doc. 45 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO MIGDALIA FORT, Plaintiff, CIV. NO.: 20-1089 (SCC) v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER On January 28, 2022, Plaintiff Migdalia Fort filed a pro se motion informing the Court that while she was unable to retain the services of a lawyer admitted to practice law in the District of Puerto Rico to represent her in this action, she had retained the services of a lawyer admitted to practice law in the District of New Jersey. See Docket No. 42. In that motion, Plaintiff Fort also included a request for the Court to consider, inter alia, transferring her case to the District of New Jersey. Id. In light of Plaintiff Fort’s request, the Court entered an order directing the Government to show cause as to why this case should not be transferred to the District of New Jersey. See Docket No. 43. In its response to the Court’s order to show cause, the Government stated that it joined Plaintiff Fort’s Dockets.Justia.com FORT v. U.S.A. Page 2 request to transfer this case to the District of New Jersey. See Docket No. 44. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees that the appropriate course of action is to transfer this case to the District of New Jersey because venue is also proper there. I. Analysis Section 1404(a) provides in pertinent part that “a district 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). Here, not only have the Parties consented to the transfer of this case, but it also holds that this action could have been initially filed in the District of New Jersey. Plaintiff Fort’s Amended Complaint and subsequent filings before this Court confirm as much. Plaintiff Fort filed this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). See Docket Nos. 15-1 and 20. 1 The FTCA’s venue provision states that venue is proper “where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b). In her Amended Complaint Plaintiff Fort alleged that she resides in Puerto Rico and that the purported conduct giving rise to her FTCA claims occurred in New Jersey. See Docket Nos. 15-1 and 20. The Amended Complaint tendered at Docket No. 15-1 was deemed filed, see Docket No. 17. However, Plaintiff Fort refiled it as a separate docket entry at Docket No. 20. 1 FORT v. U.S.A. Page 3 She reiterated this in her most recent filing before this Court. See Docket No. 42. Considering these allegations, venue is proper in both the District of Puerto Rico and the District of New Jersey. The Court has wide discretion to transfer a case pursuant to § 1404(a). See Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (explaining that, “Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions to transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964))). In this case, the Court has reviewed the Parties’ submissions at Docket Nos. 42 and 44 and sees no reason why it should deny the requested transfer since the District of New Jersey is also a proper venue and as noted by Plaintiff Fort and the Government, almost all the potential witnesses are in New Jersey. II. Conclusion In sum, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Fort’s request at Docket No. 42 to transfer this case. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this case to the District of New Jersey and then CLOSE this case. Lastly, in view of the Court’s decision to transfer this case, the pending motions at Docket Nos. 19, 22-23, and 25 are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The same may be refiled, FORT v. U.S.A. Page 4 if need be, in the District of New Jersey. Meanwhile, the motion at Docket No. 40 is deemed MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 4th day of February 2022. S/ SILVIA CARREÑO-COLL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
