Burgos v. United States of America
1:17-cv-04928
D.N.J.Jun 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Burgos (aka Eric Burgos), formerly incarcerated at FCI Fairton (NJ), alleges FTCA medical-malpractice claims for failure to test for metal allergy, lack of informed consent, and inadequate post-operative care after a December 12, 2014 scaphoid fracture surgery that used metal implants and caused systemic allergic reactions.
- The surgery and nearly all related medical treatment and treating providers (surgeon, orthopedists, allergist, off-site specialists) are located in southern New Jersey; off-site providers were non-party clinicians under contract to provide care to FCI Fairton inmates.
- Burgos left FCI Fairton in June 2015, now resides in the Bronx, and underwent implant removal surgery in New York in November 2016.
- The Government moved to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The court analyzed whether the action could have been brought in New Jersey (undisputed) and the § 1404(a) convenience factors, emphasizing locus of operative facts and convenience of witnesses.
- The court granted transfer to the District of New Jersey, concluding the operative facts and most material witnesses are in New Jersey and Plaintiffs choice of forum carried diminished weight.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this action could be brought in the District of New Jersey | Not disputed | Case could have been brought in NJ | Could be brought in NJ (undisputed) |
| Whether § 1404(a) transfer is appropriate | Transfer would burden Burgos due to medical condition and finances; SDNY is plaintiff’s chosen forum | Transfer warranted because locus of operative facts and key witnesses are in NJ | Transfer granted; operative facts and most witnesses in NJ outweigh plaintiff’s forum choice |
| Weight of plaintiff’s forum choice | Plaintiff’s domicile in NY favors SDNY | Plaintiffs choice is diminished where operative facts lack connection to chosen forum | Plaintiffs choice afforded little weight here |
| Relevance of witness locations (including non-party providers) | Emphasizes NY-based experts and plaintiff’s convenience | Non-party treating witnesses are in NJ and their convenience is entitled to greater weight | Convenience of NJ non-party witnesses is a primary factor favoring transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- NY Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N Am., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (movant bears burden to show transfer warranted)
- D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (district courts have broad discretion under § 1404(a))
- Freeplay Music, LLC v. Gibson Brands, Inc., 195 F. Supp. 3d 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (two-step § 1404(a) inquiry: venue propriety then convenience)
- Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Tala Bros. Corp., 457 F. Supp. 2d 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (lists § 1404(a) convenience factors)
- Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fairbanks Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (locus of operative facts and witness convenience often dispositive)
- Solar v. Annetts, 707 F. Supp. 2d 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (operative facts lie where alleged misconduct occurred)
- Capitol Records, LLC v. VideoEgg, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (greater weight given to convenience of non-party witnesses)
- Glass v. S & M NuTec, LLC, 456 F. Supp. 2d 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (location of expert witnesses generally irrelevant to transfer decision)
- Flores v. United States, 142 F. Supp. 3d 279 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (distinguishable—denial of transfer where key government witnesses located in transferee district and plaintiff faced severe medical travel risk)