Le Moor Bey-Razin Rose El v. Summit County Court of Common Pleas
2:17-cv-00917
S.D. OhioDec 8, 2017Background
- Petitioner Le Moor Bey-Razin Rose El filed an original mandamus action in the Supreme Court of Ohio on September 26, 2017.
- Respondents removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) (federal-officer removal), because the Ohio Supreme Court sits in Columbus (SD Ohio).
- Federal respondents (bankruptcy judges/officers) moved to transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); a separate respondent incorporated that motion.
- Petitioner did not oppose the motions to transfer venue.
- Respondents argued the federal defendants reside and performed the challenged actions in the Northern District, witnesses and a related case are in the Northern District, and the claims arise from Northern District bankruptcy-court actions.
- The magistrate judge granted the motions and directed transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper district after removal under §1442(a) | No opposition; removal to SD Ohio was proper because Ohio Supreme Court is in Columbus | Removal statutory text requires removal to district/division where action is pending; SD Ohio embraced Columbus | Removal to SD Ohio was proper under §1442(a) |
| Transfer permissible under §1404(a) | No opposition to transfer | Transfer appropriate for convenience and interests of justice; related matters and witnesses located in Northern District | Transfer is appropriate and warranted under §1404(a) |
| Whether case could originally have been brought in Northern District | Not asserted (no opposition) | Northern District is proper because defendants reside there and events arose there | Court found the case could have been brought in the Northern District |
| Convenience of parties and interests of justice | No opposition / silent | Northern District is more convenient for parties, witnesses, and judicial efficiency (related pending case) | Convenience and interests of justice weigh in favor of transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Polizzi v. Cowles Magazines, 345 U.S. 663 (1953) (removal statutes, not §1391, govern venue after removal)
- Kerobo v. Southwestern Clean Fuels, Corp., 285 F.3d 531 (6th Cir. 2002) (venue for removed cases is governed by removal statutes)
- Moore v. Rohm & Haas Co., 446 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2006) (factors guiding §1404(a) transfer include private convenience and public-interest concerns)
- Moses v. Bus. Card Exp., Inc., 929 F.2d 1131 (6th Cir. 1991) (articulating private- and public-interest factors for venue-transfer analysis)