Cooper Financial, LLC v. Frost National Bank, No. 4:2012cv00840 - Document 25 (N.D. Tex. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER granting 8 Motion to Change Venue in the alternative; this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. Signed by Judge Herman J. Weber on 11/26/12. (lk)[Transferred from Ohio Southern on 11/27/2012.]
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cooper Financial, LLC v. Frost National Bank Doc. 25 U N I T ED ST AT ES DI ST RI CT COU RT SOU T H ERN DI ST RI CT OF OH I O WEST ERN DI V I SI ON COOPER FI N AN CI AL, LLC, Pla int iff v. Ca se N o. 1 :1 2 -c vB2 9 5 -H J W T H E FROST N AT I ON AL BAN K , De fe nda nt ORDER Pe nding is t he AM ot ion to Dism iss For La c k of Pe rsona l J urisdic t ion, or Alt e rna t ive ly, t o T ra nsfe r V e nue @ (doc . no. 8 ) by de fe nda nt Frost N a t iona l Ba nk (“Frost N B”). Pla int iff Coope r Fina nc ia l, LLC (“Coope r”) oppose s t he m ot ion a nd sugge st s a t hird a lt e rna t ive , na m e ly, lim it e d disc ove ry follow e d by a he a ring on pe rsona l jurisdic t ion. H a ving fully c onside re d t he ple a dings, t he pa rt ie s’ brie fs (doc . nos. 8 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 6 , 1 7 ), a nd a pplic a ble a ut horit y, t he Court w ill gra nt t he de fe nda nt ’s a lt e rna t ive re que st t o t ra nsfe r t his c a se t o t he U nit e d St a t e s Dist ric t Court for t he N ort he rn Dist ric t of T e x a s for t he follow ing re a sons: I. Ba c k ground T his disput e c onc e rns t he pa rt ie s’ int e re st s in ove r $ 3 4 0 m illion dolla rs w ort h of a ge d or de linque nt c re dit c a rd de bt s purc ha se d from Dockets.Justia.com c re dit c a rd issue rs for a sm a ll pe rc e nt a ge of fa c e va lue . Ac c ording t o t he c om pla int , on De c e m be r 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , a T e x a s lim it e d pa rt ne rship K ing Fishe r, Lt d. (“K ing Fishe r”) obt a ine d a $ 1 0 m illion re volving line of c re dit from Frost N B in T e x a s in orde r t o buy de linque nt c re dit c a rd a c c ount re c e iva ble s, subje c t t o a se c urit y int e re st he ld by t he ba nk (¶ ¶ 8 -1 0 ). K ing Fishe r c onsolida t e d it s loa ns in 2 0 0 8 a nd, in T e x a s, e nt e re d a ne w loa n a gre e m e nt (“Frost Loa n”) w it h Frost N B, se c ure d by t he sa m e c olla t e ra l a s t he 2 0 0 6 loa n a gre e m e nt (¶ 1 2 ). 1 On Oc t obe r 1 , 2 0 0 8 , K ing Fishe r, unde r t he na m e LP I nve st m e nt s, Lt d. (“LPI ”) re sold 1 7 0 ,0 0 0 a c c ount re c e iva ble s for $ 9 .3 m illion t o Elm hurst Re c e iva ble s, LLC (“Elm hurst ”), a w holly-ow ne d I llinois subsidia ry of Ohio-ba se d Coope r Fina nc ia l, LLC (“Coope r”) (¶ 1 4 ). 2 On Oc t obe r 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 , in T e x a s, a Sa le Agre e m e nt a nd Bill of Sa le w e re e x e c ut e d by LPI for t hose re c e iva ble s (doc . no. 8 -2 a t 3 8 ). I n De c e m be r of 2 0 0 8 , Elm hurst a ssigne d it s right s t o Coope r, w hic h in t urn, c olle c t e d or re sold t hose a c c ount re c e iva ble s t o t hird pa rt ie s (¶ ¶ 1 6 , 2 1 ). Coope r Pla int iff spe lls it “K ing Fishe r,” w hile Frost spe lls it “K ing Fisc he r.” T he Court , for now , w ill use t he form e r. 2 T he purc ha se c ont ra c t for t he re c e iva ble s list s a Roc he st e r N .Y . a ddre ss for Elm hurst . 2 1 re sold a pprox im a te ly 1 4 5 ,0 0 0 of t he a c c ount s t o t hird pa rt ie s, som e of w hom a ga in re sold t he a c c ount s (doc . no. 1 2 a t 6 ). Coope r indic a t e s it st ill posse sse s a pprox im a t e ly 2 0 ,0 0 0 of t he a c c ount s. U nde r t his a rra nge m e nt , t he purc ha se r (Elm hurst , or la t e r, it s a ssigne e Coope r) w ould re m it m one y t o LPI t ow a rd t he $ 9 .3 m illion purc ha se pric e a s a c c ount s w e re c olle c t e d. Pe r LPI ’s inst ruc t ions, Coope r de posit e d a ny c olle c t e d m one y int o a loc k box a t Frost N B (“Frost Loc k Box ”), w hic h LPI m a na ge d a nd t he ba nk m onit ore d in T e x a s. Coope r c ont e nds t ha t LPI c re dit e d Coope r w it h a pprox im a t e ly $ 2 .2 m illion on it s c olle c t ions de posit e d in t he Frost Loc k Box . LPI a lso inst ruc t e d Coope r t o w ire c e rt a in c olle c t ion funds t ot a ling $ 9 7 3 ,6 3 6 .7 1 int o LPI ’s ba nk a c c ount a t Frost N B (t he “Frost Ac c ount ”) (¶ ¶ 1 9 -2 1 ). Be t w e e n De c e m be r 2 4 , 2 0 0 8 a nd J uly 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 , Coope r w ire d 1 5 se pa ra t e pa ym e nt s from Coope r’s a c c ount a t J P M orga n Cha se Ba nk , N .A. in Ohio t o LPI ’s Frost Ac c ount in T e x a s, t ot a ling $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,5 7 4 .0 0 (doc . no. 1 2 a t 6 ). As pa ym e nt s w e re re c e ive d in t he Frost Loc k Box or Frost Ac c ount , LPI se nt re port s t o Coope r, t ra c k ing pa ym e nt s a pplie d t ow a rd t he 3 purc ha se pric e , inc luding pa ym e nt s t ha t ha d be e n m a de , or w e re t o be m a de , t o Frost N B. Coope r a sse rt s t ha t unde r t he “Loc k box Agre e m e nt ,” LPI c ould only w it hdra w or disburse funds from t he Frost Loc k Box if it c re dit e d t he m one y t o Coope r for t he purc ha se pric e of t he re c e iva ble s (doc . no. 8 -2 a t 5 2 , ¶ 3 ). Any re m a ining funds w e re suppose d t o be he ld in t rust for Elm hurst /Coope r (I d.). T he Loc k Box Agre e m e nt w a s be t w e e n LPI a nd Elm hurst (doc . no. 8 -2 a t 5 2 ). Frost N B w a s not a pa rt y t o it . N one t he le ss, Coope r a sse rt s t ha t Frost N B “c re a t e d t he Frost Loc k Box t o m onit or a c t ivit ie s (sa le s a nd c olle c t ions of re c e iva ble s) a nd re que st e d re port s from [K ing Fishe r/LPI ] on it s a c t ivit ie s in Ohio a nd e lse w he re t o e nsure re pa ym e nt of t he loa ns (doc . no. 1 7 a t 4 ). I n J une of 2 0 0 9 , LPI c e a se d a ll c om m unic a t ions w it h Coope r (doc . no. 1 2 a t 6 ). K ing Fishe r/LPI de fa ult e d on it s ba nk loa n w it h Frost N B. Ac c ording t o Coope r, LPI or Frost N B w it hdre w funds from t he Frost Loc k Box a nd m isa pplie d t he funds t o pa y off K ing Fishe r/LPI ’s loa n w it h Frost N B. Coope r sugge st s t ha t Frost N B e it he r re quire d K ing Fishe r/LPI t o do so, or a lt e rna t ive ly, sim ply a c c e sse d t he funds a s pa ym e nt t ow a rd t he Frost Loa n. Coope r indic a te s 4 it doe s not k now t he exact a rra nge m e nt be t w e e n K ing Fishe r/LPI a nd Frost N B (doc . no. 1 2 a t 5 ). Aft e r K ing Fishe r/LPI de fa ult e d on t he Frost Loa n, Frost N B file d suit on Oc t obe r 5 , 2 0 1 1 , a ga inst K ing Fishe r/LPI in st a t e c ourt in T e x a s, i.e . t he 3 4 2 nd J udic ia l Dist ric t Court for T a rra nt Count y, T e x a s (doc . no. 8 a t 4 , ¶ 7 ). T he st a t e c ourt a ppoint e d a re c e ive r t o ide nt ify a nd se ll a ny c olla t e ra l (doc . no. 8 -2 a t 2 3 ). K ing Fishe r/LPI c ont e nde d t ha t t he sa le t o Elm hurst “ne ve r oc c urre d” be c a use Elm hurst ha d not pa id t he full purc ha se pric e . I n t he st a t e c a se , Elm hurst /Coope r file d a “lim it e d obje c t ion” (doc . no. 8 -2 a t 3 4 ) c ont e nding t ha t it ha d purc ha se d t he right s t o 1 7 0 ,0 0 0 a c c ount s from LPI in t he ordina ry c ourse of busine ss, t ha t no “lie ns” w e re a t t a c he d t o t hose re c e iva ble s, a nd t ha t it ha d pa id K ing Fishe r/LPI “in full” (I d. a t ¶ ¶ 3 -4 ). Coope r indic a t e s it ha d found no se c urit y int e re st unde r t he na m e LPI , w he re a s Frost N B indic a t e s t ha t it s se c urit y int e re st w a s ba se d on t he Frost Loa n t o K ing Fishe r (w hic h did busine ss a s “LPI ” w he n de a ling w it h Elm hurst ). I n it s “Orde r of M a rc h 2 8 , 2 0 1 2 ,” t he T e x a s st a t e c ourt he ld t ha t K ing Fishe r/LPI c ould not c onve y t it le t o t he a c c ount re c e iva ble s be c a use Frost N a t iona l Ba nk “ne ve r re le a se d it s se c urit y int e re st in t he 5 disput e d a c c ount s, nor w a s it pa id t he $ 9 m illion c ont e m pla t e d by t he a lle ge d sa le ” (doc . no. 8 -2 a t 6 3 , ¶ ¶ 9 -1 0 ). T he st a t e c ourt c onside re d a nd ove rrule d t he “lim it e d obje c t ion” of Elm hurst /Coope r (doc . no. 8 -2 a t 6 3 , ¶ 6 ). T he st a t e c ourt re je c t e d Elm hurst /Coope r’s a rgum e nt t ha t it w a s a “buye r in t he ordina ry c ourse of busine ss” be c a use t he T e x a s la w pe rt a ining t o “buye rs in t he ordina ry c ourse of busine ss” a pplie d t o goods, not a c c ount s re c e iva ble s (I d. a t ¶ 1 1 ). T he st a t e c ourt orde re d t he re c e ive r t o se ll t he a c c ount s c la im e d by Elm hurst /Coope r, e x c e pt for t he port ion t ha t Coope r ha d re sold t o a t hird pa rt y “RAB Pe rform a nc e Re c ove rie s, LLC” (I d. a t ¶ ¶ 7 , 1 4 , 1 5 ). Se ve ra l w e e k s la t e r on April 1 2 , 2 0 1 2 , Coope r file d t he pre se nt fe de ra l de c la ra t ory a c t ion a ga inst Frost N B in t he Sout he rn Dist ric t of Ohio. Coope r se e k s a de c la ra t ion t ha t it w a s “a bona fide purc ha se r of t he re c e iva ble s a nd/or a purc ha se r in t he ordina ry c ourse ,” t ha t Frost N B a ut horize d or a c quie sc e d in K ing Fishe r/LPI ’s sa le of t he a c c ount re c e iva ble s t o Elm hurst /Coope r, t ha t Frost N B t he re by re linquishe d it s se c urit y int e re st in t hose re c e iva ble s, a nd t ha t Coope r ha s priorit y ove r a ny se c urit y int e re st t ha t Frost N B m a y posse s (¶ ¶ 2 6 -3 4 ). Coope r a sk s 6 t his Court t o de t e rm ine “w ho, a s be t w e e n Coope r a nd Frost , ha s right ful t it le t o a ll t he re c e iva ble s, de spit e a re c e ive rship proc e e ding (in w hic h Coope r w a s not a pa rt y) ha ving t a k e n pla c e in T e x a s” (doc . no. 1 2 a t 1 ). Coope r a sse rt s t ha t “no se c urit y a gre e m e nt ha d be e n file d by Frost N B na m ing LPI ” a nd t ha t Elm hurst /Coope r w a s una w a re of a ny se c urit y a gre e m e nt be t w e e n Frost N B a nd K ing Fishe r (doc . no. 1 2 a t 4 ). De fe nda nt Frost N B ha s file d a Rule 1 2 (b)(2 ) m ot ion t o dism iss for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic t ion, or a lt e rna t ive ly, t o t ra nsfe r. Coope r oppose s dism issa l a nd/or t ra nsfe r, a nd sugge st s t ha t lim it e d disc ove ry be a llow e d, follow e d by a n e vide nt ia ry he a ring on pe rsona l jurisdic t ion. II. St a nda rd of Re vie w Fe de ra l Rule of Civil Proc e dure 1 2 (b)(2 ) provide s for dism issa l of a c la im for la c k of jurisdic t ion ove r t he pe rson. Pla int iff be a rs t he burde n of e st a blishing t ha t suc h jurisdic t ion e x ist s. Fe d.R.Civ.P. 1 2 (b)(2 ); Y oun v. T ra c k , I nc ., 3 2 4 F.3 d 4 0 9 , 4 1 7 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 3 ). Whe n a dist ric t c ourt rule s on a m ot ion t o dism iss for la c k of pe rsona l jurisdic t ion w it hout a he a ring, t he c ourt c onside rs t he ple a dings a nd a ffida vit s in t he light m ost fa vora ble t o pla int iff. Com puSe rve , I nc . v. Pa t t e rson, 8 9 F.3 d 1 2 5 7 , 7 1 2 6 2 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 6 ). T he pa rt ie s a gre e t ha t spe c ific jurisdic t ion is a t issue he re . Spe c ific jurisdic t ion e x ist s w he re t he subje c t m a t t e r of t he la w suit a rise s out of or is re la t e d t o t he de fe nda nt 's c ont a c t s w it h t he forum st a t e . Air Produc t s a nd Cont rols, I nc . v. Sa fe t e c h I nt e rn., I nc ., 5 0 3 F.3 d 5 4 4 , 5 4 9 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 7 ). I n a na lyzing pe rsona l jurisdic t ion in dive rsit y a c t ions, fe de ra l c ourt s look t o t he la w of t he forum st a t e t o de t e rm ine w he t he r t he dist ric t c ourt ha s pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ove r a pa rt y, subje c t t o c onst it ut iona l due proc e ss re quire m e nt s. I d. Ohio's long-a rm st a t ut e provide s nine grounds t o e x e rc ise spe c ific pe rsona l jurisdic t ion. Ohio R.C. § 2 3 0 7 .3 8 2 (A)(1 -9 ). As t o w he t he r t he e x e rc ise of spe c ific jurisdic t ion m e e t s c onst it ut iona l due proc e ss re quire m e nt s, t he pe rt ine nt inquiry is w he t he r m inim um c ont a c t s a re sa t isfie d so a s not t o offe nd At ra dit iona l not ions of fa ir pla y a nd subst a nt ia l just ic e .@ Ca lpha lon Corp. v. Row le t t e , 2 2 8 F.3 d 7 1 8 , 7 2 1 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 0 ) (c it ing Cole v. M ile t i, 1 3 3 F.3 d 4 3 3 , 4 3 6 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 8 )). Ohio’s long-a rm st a t ut e doe s not e x t e nd t o t he c onst it ut iona l lim it s of t he Due Proc e ss Cla use . Conn v. Z a k ha rov, 6 6 7 F.3 d 7 0 5 , 7 1 2 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 1 2 ). 8 I n c onside ring w he t he r spe c ific pe rsona l jurisdic t ion m a y be e x e rc ise d c onsist e nt w it h due proc e ss, re le va nt fa c t ors t o c onside r inc lude w he t he r: 1 ) t he de fe nda nt purpose fully a va ile d it se lf of t he privile ge of a c t ing in Ohio or c a using a c onse que nc e in Ohio; 2 ) t he c a use of a c t ion a rise s from t he de fe nda nt 's a c t ivit ie s t he re , a nd 3 ) t he a c t s of t he de fe nda nt or c onse que nc e s c a use d by t he de fe nda nt ha ve a subst a nt ia l e nough c onne c t ion w it h Ohio t o m a k e t he e x e rc ise of jurisdic t ion ove r t he de fe nda nt re a sona ble . I d. a t 5 5 0 . All t hre e fa c t ors m ust be m e t t o sa t isfy due proc e ss. LAK , I nc . v. De e r Cre e k Ent e rprise s, 8 8 5 F.2 d 1 2 9 3 , 1 3 0 3 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 8 9 ), c e rt . de nie d, 4 9 4 U .S. 1 0 5 6 (1 9 9 0 ). I I I . Disc ussion A. Pe rsona l J urisdic t ion Frost N B a rgue s t ha t t his Court la c k s pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ove r it , a nd a lt e rna t ive ly, t ha t ve nue is prope r in T e x a s, not Ohio. Frost N B ha s a llude d t o re s judic a t a a nd/or c la im pre c lusion (i.e . t he ow ne rship of t he re c e iva ble s ha s a lre a dy be e n lit iga t e d in t he st a t e a c t ion in T e x a s), but ha s not m ove d t o dism iss on suc h ba sis. Alt hough Coope r a rgue s t ha t “m a ny of t he re c e iva ble s a re in Ohio,” t he T e x a s st a t e c ourt he ld t ha t 9 LPI c ould not se ll t he m t o Coope r a nd t ha t Frost N B re t a ine d a se c urit y int e re st in t he m . T he st a t e c ourt in T e x a s re je c t e d Elm hurst /Coope r’s “lim it e d obje c t ion” ba se d in pa rt on T e x a s la w . Coope r is e sse nt ia lly a sk ing t his Court t o de c la re t ha t Coope r ow ns t he re c e iva ble s, a re sult t ha t a ppe a rs inc onsist e nt w it h t he prior orde r of t he T e x a s st a t e c ourt . Frost N B point s out t ha t it s princ ipa l pla c e of busine ss is in T e x a s, t ha t a ll of it s bra nc he s a re in T e x a s, a nd t ha t t he init ia l loa n a gre e m e nt s a nd ot he r ba nk doc um e nt s w e re e x e c ut e d in T e x a s w it h a Texas borrow e r (K ing Fishe r/LPI ). Frost NB a sse rt s “t he only c onne c t ion t o Ohio is t he fa c t t ha t Coope r is loc a t e d t he re ” (doc . no. 8 a t 9 ). Frost N B indic a t e s it w a s not a w a re of t he sa le t o Elm hurst or t he a ssignm e nt t o Coope r (doc . no. 8 a t 8 ), a n a sse rt ion t ha t Coope r disput e s. Coope r point s t o t he “Frost Loc k Box ” a s e vide nc e t ha t Frost N B w a s a w a re of a nd a c quie sc e d in t he a ssignm e nt t o Coope r a nd a c t ive ly m onit ore d t he funds t o e nsure pa ym e nt of t he Frost Loa n. Coope r a rgue s t ha t : 1 ) m a ny of t he re c e iva ble s a t issue a re c urre nt ly loc a t e d in Ohio; 2 ) Frost N B “purpose ly a va ile d it se lf in Ohio by m a k ing a c la im t o t he Ohio Re c e iva ble s;” 3 ) Frost N B w a s a w a re (or 10 should ha ve be e n a w a re ) t ha t K ing Fishe r/LPI sold t he re c e iva ble s na t ionw ide ; 4 ) Frost N B re c e ive d a nd be ne fit t e d from Coope r’s pa ym e nt s int o K ing Fishe r/LPI ’s a c c ount s a t Frost N B; a nd 5 ) Frost N B a nd K ing Fishe r/LPI dire c t e d “num e rous c om m unic a t ions” t o Coope r in Ohio (doc . no. 1 2 a t 2 ). Esse nt ia lly, Coope r is a rguing t ha t t his a m ount s t o Frost N B “t ra nsa c t ing busine ss” in Ohio for purpose s of Ohio’s long-a rm st a t ut e , Ohio R.C. § 2 3 0 7 .3 8 2 (A)(1 ). Coope r a lt e rna t ive ly a rgue s t ha t t he Court ha s in re m jurisdic t ion “ove r prope rt y, e .g., t he Ohio Re c e iva ble s” (doc . no. 1 2 a t 1 1 -1 2 ). Coope r a sse rt s t ha t t he re m a ining “2 0 ,0 0 0 re c e iva ble s” a re in Ohio be c a use Coope r ow ns t he m a nd is loc a t e d t he re (doc . no. 1 2 a t 1 1 ). Coope r c it e s J ohnson v. Long Be a c h M ort ga ge Loa n T rust 2 0 0 1 -4 , 4 5 1 F.Supp.2 d 1 6 (D.D.C. 2 0 0 6 ) for t he proposit ion t ha t “w he re a pa rt y c la im s a se c urit y int e re st in prope rt y loc a t e d in a not he r st a t e . . . it is subje c t t o pe rsona l jurisdic t ion in t he st a t e w he re t he prope rt y is loc a t e d” (doc . no. 1 7 a t 3 , fn. 2 ). Re lia nc e on suc h c a se in m ispla c e d, a s J ohnson involve d a se c urit y int e re st in re a l e st a t e , a nd t he long-a rm st a t ut e a t issue in t ha t non-Ohio c a se spe c ific a lly re fe rre d t o int e re st s 11 in re a l e st a t e . Frost N B re sponds t ha t , a s he ld by the T e x a s st a t e c ourt , Coope r doe s not “ow n” the re c e iva ble s, a nd m ore ove r, Coope r’s loc a t ion is irre le va nt t o “in re m ” jurisdic t ion ove r t he re c e iva ble s (doc . no. 1 6 a t 1 ). Frost N B sugge st s t ha t t he “re s” a t issue is a c t ua lly it s T e x a s-file d se c urit y int e re st in t he re c e iva ble s (I d. a t 1 0 ). B. V e nue U lt im a t e ly, t he se t horny issue s re ga rding pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ne e d not be re solve d he re . Eve n a ssum ing t ha t Frost N B’s de a lings w it h Coope r w ould be suffic ie nt unde r Ohio’s long-a rm st a t ut e t o find pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ove r Frost N B he re (a nd furt he r a ssum ing t hose m inim um c ont a c t s w ould be c onst it ut iona lly suffic ie nt ), t he de fe nda nt ’s a rgum e nt for t ra nsfe rring ve nue t o a m ore c onve nie nt forum pursua nt t o 2 8 U .S.C. § 1 4 0 4 ha s m e rit . Se c t ion 1 4 0 4 (a ) provide s t ha t [f]or t he c onve nie nc e of pa rt ie s a nd w it ne sse s, in t he int e re st of just ic e , a dist ric t c ourt m a y t ra nsfe r a ny c ivil a c t ion t o a ny ot he r dist ric t or division w he re it m ight ha ve be e n brought .” T he purpose of t his provision is t o t ra nsfe r a c t ions brought in 12 a pe rm issible , ye t inc onve nie nt forum . M a rt in v. St ok e s, 6 2 3 F.2 d 4 6 9 , 4 7 1 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 8 0 ); Pit t oc k v. Ot is Ele va t or Co., 8 F.3 d 3 2 5 , 3 2 9 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 3 ) (t he c ourt m ust ha ve pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ove r t he de fe nda nt t o t ra nsfe r unde r § 1 4 0 4 ). Re le va nt fa c t ors inc lude : 1 ) t he c onve nie nc e of t he pa rt ie s a nd w it ne sse s, 2 ) a c c e ss t o e vide nc e ; 3 ) t he a va ila bilit y of proc e ss t o c om pe l a t t e nda nc e of w it ne sse s; 4 ) t he c ost of obt a ining w illing w it ne sse s; 6 ) ot he r pra c t ic a l proble m s a ssoc ia t e d w it h t rying t he c a se m ost e x pe dit iously a nd ine x pe nsive ly; a nd 7 ) t he int e re st of just ic e . Buc k e ye Che c k Ca shing of Arizona , I nc . v. La ng, 2 0 0 7 WL 6 4 1 8 2 4 (S.D.Ohio) (J . Gra ha m ) (c it ing M ose s v. Busine ss Ca rd Ex pre ss, I nc ., 9 2 9 F.2 d 1 1 3 1 , 1 1 3 7 (6 t h Cir.), c e rt . de nie d, 5 0 2 U .S. 8 2 1 (1 9 9 1 )). T he se fa c t ors st rongly fa vor ve nue in T e x a s. T he m a jorit y of disc ove ry w ill ne c e ssa rily t a k e pla c e in T e x a s, a nd t he w it ne sse s a nd proof a re loc a t e d t he re . I n short , t he fe de ra l c ourt in T e x a s is a fa r m ore c onve nie nt forum for t his disput e . Eve n if pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ove r t he de fe nda nt is la c k ing, t he c ourt m a y t ra nsfe r a c a se t o a not he r dist ric t pursua nt t o 2 8 U .S.C. § 1 4 0 6 . J a c k son v. L & F M a rt in La ndsc a pe , 4 2 1 Fe d. Appx . 4 8 2 , 4 8 3 (6 t h 13 Cir. 2 0 0 9 ) (obse rving t ha t a c ourt ne e d not ha ve pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ove r t he de fe nda nt be fore t ra nsfe rring pursua nt t o § 1 4 0 6 (a )). I n ot he r w ords, t his provision a pplie s t o c a se s brought in a n im pe rm issible forum . M a rt in, 6 2 3 F.2 d a t 4 7 4 ; se e a lso, T a ylor v. Love , 4 1 5 F.2 d 1 1 1 8 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 6 9 ) (dist ric t c ourt m a y t ra nsfe r c a se t o a not he r dist ric t e ve n a bse nt pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ove r de fe nda nt ), c e rt . de nie d, 3 9 7 U .S. 1 0 2 3 (1 9 7 0 ). Pursua nt t o 2 8 U .S.C. § 1 4 0 6 (a ), t he c ourt m a y, in t he int e re st s of just ic e , t ra nsfe r t he c a se t o a dist ric t c ourt in w hic h it c ould ha ve be e n brought . Goldla w r, I nc . v. H e im a n, 3 6 9 U .S. 4 6 3 , 4 6 6 -6 7 (1 9 6 2 ) (holding t ha t § 1 4 0 6 (a ) doe s not re quire a dist ric t c ourt t o ha ve pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ove r t he de fe nda nt be fore t ra nsfe rring t he c a se ). Suc h de c ision is w it hin t he dist ric t c ourt 's sound disc re t ion. First of M ic h. Corp. v. Bra m le t , 1 4 1 F.3 d 2 6 0 , 2 6 2 (6 t h Cir. 1 9 9 8 ). Whe n a pla int iff ha s som e a rgua ble ba sis for be lie ving t ha t t he a c t ion w a s prope rly brought in a pa rt ic ula r dist ric t , t ra nsfe r is t he usua l c ourse ra t he r t ha n dism issa l. 1 5 Wright & M ille r, Fe d. Pra c . & Proc . § 3 8 2 7 a t 2 7 4 (1 9 8 6 ); St a nife r v. Bra nna n, 5 6 4 F.3 d 4 5 5 , 4 6 0 (6 t h Cir. 2 0 0 9 ). 14 Sinc e Frost N B is a T e x a s ba nk , t his c a se c ould “ha ve be e n brought ” t he re . Se e 2 8 U .S.C. § 1 3 9 1 (a ) (providing t ha t in a c ivil a c t ion ba se d on dive rsit y, ve nue is prope r in t he judic ia l dist ric t w he re t he de fe nda nt re side s, or w he re a subst a nt ia l pa rt of t he e ve nt s giving rise t o t he c la im oc c urre d). Aga in, m ost of t he fa c t s st rongly fa vor ve nue in T e x a s. K ing Fishe r/LPI a nd Frost N B a re bot h loc a t e d in T e x a s. T he origina l de a l be t w e e n LPI a nd Elm hurst w a s m a de in T e x a s. T he ba nk a c c ount s a nd Frost Loc k Box a re in T e x a s. T he se c urit y int e re st a sse rt e d by Frost N B is in T e x a s. T he w it ne sse s w it h re le va nt k now le dge a re re pre se nt a t ive s of Frost N B a nd K ing Fishe r/LPI in T e x a s. T he st a t e -a ppoint e d re c e ive rship for K ing Fishe r/LPI ’s c olla t e ra l is in T e x a s. T he purc ha se c ont ra c t be t w e e n LPI a nd Elm hurst spe c ifie d t ha t T e x a s la w w ould a pply. Frost N B point s out t ha t t he only w it ne sse s in Ohio a re Coope r’s w it ne sse s, w ho la c k pe rsona l k now le dge a bout t he a gre e m e nt s be t w e e n Frost N B a nd K ing Fishe r/LPI (w hic h is one re a son w hy Coope r w a nt s t o do disc ove ry in t his a c t ion). N ot a bly, a ny disc ove ry in t he pre se nt a c t ion w ould ne c e ssa rily t a k e pla c e in T e x a s. T hus, e ve n a bse nt pe rsona l jurisdic t ion ove r Frost N B in Ohio, t his c a se , 15 in t he int e re st s of just ic e , m a y a ppropria t e ly be t ra nsfe rre d pursua nt t o 2 8 U .S.C. § 1 4 0 6 (a ). Se e St one v. T w iddy & Co. of Duc k , I nc ., 2 0 1 2 WL 3 0 6 4 1 0 3 , * 6 (S.D.Ohio) (J . Ba rre t t ) (“t his Court m a y sua spont e orde r t ha t a c a se be t ra nsfe rre d pursua nt t o § 1 4 0 6 ”). Ac c ordingly, t he de fe nda nt ’s AM ot ion t o Dism iss For La c k of Pe rsona l J urisdic t ion, or Alt e rna t ive ly, t o T ra nsfe r V e nue @ (doc . no. 8 ) is GRAN T ED in t he a lt e rna t ive ; t his c a se is T RAN SFERRED t o t he U nit e d St a t e s Dist ric t Court for t he N ort he rn Dist ric t of T e x a s, Fort Wort h Division. I T I S SO ORDERED. s/H e rm a n J . We be r H e rm a n J . We be r, Se nior J udge U nit e d St a t e s Dist ric t Court 16
]]>
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.
