Bederson v. United States
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134717
| D.D.C. | 2010Background
- Bederson, as personal representative of the estate of Robert Bederson, sues the United States, Dr. Turner, and Dr. Bakshi for negligent medical care (FTCA claim and a separately pleaded claim against Bakshi).
- Bederson allegedly suffered anemia and internal bleeding after care at the DC VA Medical Center and a separate esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed by Bakshi in Maryland.
- Bederson alleges the DC Federal Defendants’ care occurred at the DC Medical Center; Bakshi performed the procedure in Maryland and allegedly failed to advise stopping a blood thinner and did not administer heparin.
- The action originally asserted Count I under FTCA in DC and Count II under diversity; Bederson later amended to substitute himself as plaintiff after Bederson’s death, continuing as a Survival Action.
- Bakshi moves to transfer the entire case to the District of Maryland under §1404(a) or, alternatively, to sever Count II and transfer only that count; the Federal Defendants take no position on transfer but oppose severance.
- The court must decide on transfer balancing private/public factors and whether joint claims against multiple defendants warrant denial of severance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case should be transferred under § 1404(a). | Keep in DC; plaintiff resides in MD but forum denial favored. | Transfer to MD is appropriate for convenience and justice. | Denial of transfer; private factors weigh against transfer; public factors neutral. |
| Whether Count II should be severed and transferred separately. | Counts I and II are logically related; severance would cause duplicative proceedings. | Sever Count II to MD to avoid prejudice and separate trials. | Denial of severance; joinder of Bakshi proper under Rule 20(a); no prejudice shown under Rule 42(b). |
| Whether Dr. Bakshi was properly joined under Rule 20(a). | Counts I and II arise from a common nucleus of facts and are logically related. | Bakshi is not affiliated with the DC Medical Center and performed a different procedure. | Counts I and II are logically related; proper joinder; Rule 21/Rule 42(b) not satisfied for severance. |
| What law governs Counts I and II for choice-of-law purposes. | DC law applies to Count I; Maryland law to Count II; potential conflicts acknowledged. | MD law should apply where applicable; arguments focus on transfer dynamics. | DC law governs Count I; MD law governs Count II; no transfer impact changes result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richter v. Analex Corp., 940 F.Supp.353 (D.D.C.1996) (§1404 transfers involve entire actions, not severed claims)
- Wyndham Assocs. v. Bintliff, 398 F.2d 614 (2d Cir.1968) (transfer scope concerns whole action)
- In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir.2004) (consideration of interests of all claims in transfer)
- Greene v. Nat'l Head Start Ass'n, 610 F.Supp.2d 72 (D.D.C.2009) (private/public factor framework for §1404(a))
- Thayer/Patricof Educ. Funding, LLC v. Pryor Res., Inc., 196 F.Supp.2d 21 (D.D.C.2002) (undisputed facts may be considered in transfer)