Flores v. United States
142 F. Supp. 3d 279
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Plaintiff Alba Quiñonez Flores, an El Salvador national living in Brooklyn, alleges CBP agents mistreated her after she crossed into Texas in 2013 and brings FTCA tort claims and Bivens claims against unnamed agents.
- She was detained at the Falfurrias, Texas CBP station for several days; alleges lack of medication, overcrowded, cold holding rooms, fainting and resulting medical/psychiatric injuries (PTSD, syncope, depression).
- Plaintiff is medically fragile, receiving treatment in the Eastern District of New York and has been paroled to the U.S.; her doctors advise travel is risky.
- The United States moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas (where the events and many witnesses/records are located).
- The government’s motion was stayed for discovery; the Court considered witness location, party convenience, access to documents, ability to compel testimony, relative means, forum familiarity with law, deference to plaintiff’s forum, and trial efficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is warranted | Flores: transfer would impose severe hardship because of serious medical conditions and limited means; trial in EDNY is convenient and ready | U.S.: witnesses, records, and events are in Texas; transfer would be more convenient for government witnesses and reduce taxpayer expense | Denied — government failed to show clear and convincing need to transfer; plaintiff’s health, means, and other factors weigh against transfer |
| Convenience of witnesses | Plaintiff: key non-party and medical witnesses can appear by video or have depositions used; plaintiff must be present in person in NY | U.S.: most government and treating witnesses are in Texas; travel burdens government employees | Weighs against transfer as videoconferencing/videotapes mitigate witness inconvenience and plaintiff’s presence favors EDNY |
| Convenience of parties / relative means | Flores: has limited resources and significant health risks making travel to Texas burdensome | U.S.: transporting officers is an administrative burden and operational cost | Weighs against transfer — shifting burden to an indigent, medically fragile plaintiff is improper |
| Trial efficiency, documents, process, and governing law familiarity | Plaintiff: case is trial-ready in EDNY; documentary/video evidence available; federal claims predominate and any Texas tort law is not complex | U.S.: local Texas interest and most evidence located in Texas would make Texas more efficient | Weighs against transfer — discovery and trial materials already in EDNY, technology obviates need for physical presence, and federal courts can apply Texas law |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognized implied constitutional damages action against federal agents)
- N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (enumerates § 1404(a) transfer factors)
- D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (district courts have broad discretion in § 1404(a) determinations)
- JetBlue Airways Corp. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, 960 F. Supp. 2d 383 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (discusses transfer factors including deference to plaintiff’s forum and use of video testimony)
- Hines v. Overstock.com, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 2d 362 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) (contemplates relative means and witness convenience in transfer analysis)