Curcio v. CCS Medical Inc
3:23-cv-01579
N.D. Tex.Jun 30, 2023Background
- Relator Frederick Curcio, a Texas resident and former Dallas-based CCS employee, filed a qui tam False Claims Act (FCA) suit in the District of New Jersey alleging multi-state false claims by related medical-supply defendants.
- The United States declined to intervene; the Amended Complaint was unsealed and served in 2022–2023.
- Defendants are related corporate entities incorporated in various states but maintain principal places of business in Farmers Branch (Dallas), Texas.
- Relator moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the action to the Northern District of Texas; defendants opposed transfer and alternatively sought the Middle District of Florida.
- The Magistrate Judge found venue proper in both districts under the FCA, analyzed the Jumara convenience and interests-of-justice factors, and granted transfer to the Northern District of Texas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to N.D. Tex. is proper | Curcio: Texas is the locus of operative facts; he and defendants are in Texas; witnesses and documents are there, so TX is more convenient | Defs: New Jersey venue is proper; plaintiff must show changed circumstances; moving now is gamesmanship; if not NJ, then M.D. Fla. is preferable | Granted: Court found transferee venue proper and §1404(a) factors favor transfer to N.D. Tex. |
| Weight to give plaintiff’s original forum choice | Curcio: originally chose NJ but now TX is more convenient after unsealing and post-decline litigation posture | Defs: plaintiff’s initial choice deserves deference; Relator must show substantial change to transfer | Neutral: Plaintiff’s original choice entitled to less deference because operative facts have little nexus to NJ and plaintiff seeks transfer. |
| Whether Middle District of Florida is a better alternative forum | Curcio: prefers N.D. Tex.; argues Florida not shown to be more convenient | Defs: some claim submission, billing, and servers allegedly located in Florida; judges there have lower caseloads | Rejected: Court credited the likely location of high-level witnesses and headquarters in Texas over defendants’ generalized Florida assertions. |
| Whether the pending Rule 12 dismissal motion should be decided before transfer | Curcio: asked transfer now given forum convenience | Defs: urged denying transfer and adjudicating dismissal here first | Denied: Court exercised discretion to decide transfer first and found merits should be heard in transferee forum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (transfer statute distinctions and purposes)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (forum non conveniens and venue principles)
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (framework for balancing § 1404(a) private and public interest factors)
- Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22 (3d Cir. 1970) (deference to plaintiff’s forum choice and transfer prerequisites)
- Reading Health Sys. v. Bear Stearns & Co., 900 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 2018) (courts may address venue before merits for judicial economy)
- In re Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d 390 (3d Cir. 2017) (district court discretion to address convenience-based venue issues)