FARKAS v. RICH COAST CORPORATION
1:14-cv-00272
M.D. Penn.Feb 11, 2014Background
- Abbey Farkas sued Rich Coast Corp. and related Defendants in the Western District of Pennsylvania over transfer venue and related conduct.
- Defendants moved to transfer venue under Rule 12(b)(3) and to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); motions were heard at an evidentiary hearing.
- The court issued a Memorandum Order on January 17, 2014 denying the petition to dismiss/strike and related relief.
- Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 35) and sought interlocutory appeal; Defendants responded.
- On January 27, 2014, the Chief Judge noted that the magistrate judge retains authority and that any misconduct remedy would be referral-based, not a direct order in this case.
- The district court ultimately denied both the reconsideration and the interlocutory-appeal certification on February 11, 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion for reconsideration should be granted | Farkas contends trial court erred on law and facts and seeks vacatur. | Ufemas argue no new meritorious issues; no manifest injustice. | Denied; no new meritorious grounds presented. |
| Whether the court should certify the Memorandum Order for interlocutory appeal | Farkas contends controlling-law question with substantial disagreement. | Certification not warranted; no exceptional circumstances. | Denied; three §1292(b) criteria not satisfied. |
| Whether the Court erred in premising factual determinations pending transfer ruling | Court prematurely adjudicated merits before discovery. | Rulings anticipated only on venue motions, not merits. | Prematurity not shown; no manifest injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (motion for reconsideration standard; correct manifest errors or new evidence)
- Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985) (reconsideration used to correct clear error of law or prevent injustice)
- Katz v. Carte Blanche Corp., 496 F.2d 747 (3d Cir. 1974) (certification for interlocutory appeal criteria; controling question of law)
- Link v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., 550 F.2d 860 (3d Cir. 1977) (interlocutory appeal standards and discretionary review)