Abromats v. Abromats, 0:16-cv-61649

Background

Philip Abromats sued his brother Clifford and Clifford’s wife in W.D.N.Y., alleging undue influence, breach of trust, and related claims concerning two Florida revocable trusts established by their parents; Clifford is trustee.
Philip seeks declarations invalidating a January 2011 trust amendment (removing him) and upholding a September 2011 amendment (reinstating him), plus accounting, removal of trustee, injunctions, damages and other relief.
Clifford filed parallel actions in Broward County, Florida seeking approval of trust accountings and a declaration that the September 2011 amendments are void.
Defendants moved to dismiss or, alternatively, transfer the W.D.N.Y. case to the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a); dismissal argument was withdrawn at oral argument.
The magistrate judge applied the §1404(a) multi-factor test (convenience of witnesses/parties, locus of operative facts, subpoena power, documents, relative means, forum familiarity with law, plaintiff’s choice, and judicial efficiency) and found most factors favored Florida, notably locus of operative facts and key non-party witnesses (e.g., Florida attorney Jack Baxter).
The court granted transfer to the Southern District of Florida for further proceedings and denied the remainder of the motion without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) is appropriate	Abromats argued transfer premature and inconvenient (distance, health, finances); plaintiff invoked his chosen forum	Defendants argued convenience and operative facts favor S.D. Fla., with key nonparty witnesses and documents located in Florida	Court granted transfer to S.D. Fla.; motion timely and transfer warranted on totality of factors
Convenience of witnesses	Plaintiff noted no showing that Florida witnesses are unwilling to travel; emphasized travel burden	Defendants identified numerous Florida nonparty witnesses (physicians, caregivers, attorney Baxter, accountants) with material testimony	Court found witness convenience strongly favored Florida (material testimony of Baxter and others); factor favors transfer
Locus of operative facts & forum familiarity with governing law	Plaintiff argued some contacts to NY but emphasized litigating ability and equal competence of fora	Defendants pointed to Florida-based events (meetings, amendments executed in Fort Lauderdale), Florida preparers of accountings, and that Florida law governs	Court held locus of operative facts favors Florida and that Florida court is better suited to apply Florida law; factor favors transfer
Plaintiff's choice of forum and relative means	Abromats emphasized his forum choice, travel burden, and limited finances/local counsel costs	Defendants noted plaintiff is Wyoming resident (not NY) and filed declaratory claim to preempt Florida suit; defendants are amenable to Florida	Court gave reduced weight to plaintiff’s forum choice (non-forum resident, declaratory posture) and found plaintiff did not show undue hardship; factor did not defeat transfer

Key Cases Cited

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (discretionary §1404(a) transfer requires individualized, case-by-case consideration)
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (principles governing transfer of venue)
New York Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (moving party bears burden to make strong case for transfer; clear and convincing standard applied in 2d Cir.)
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (appropriateness of trying diversity case in forum familiar with governing state law)
In re Cuyahoga Equip. Corp., 980 F.2d 110 (motions for transfer lie within broad discretion of district court)