Binion v. U.S. Marshals Service et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in Part and Motion to Change Venue

D.N.J.October 5, 2016

PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney ALLAN B. K. URGENT Assistant United States Attorney 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 Newark, NJ 07102 Tel.: (973) 297-2079 Fax: (973) 297-2010 allan.urgent@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KATEGIA R. BINION, Plaintiff, v. DALY P. THOMAS and U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, and John Doe(s) 1-10 (names being fictitious), Defendants. HON. MADELINE COX ARLEO Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-06078-MCA- MAH NOTICE OF MOTION To: Lorraine M. Medeiros, Esq. Law Offices of Lorraine M. Medeiros, Esq. 56 Ferry Street, 1st Floor Newark, NJ 07105 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on November 7, 2016, at 10:00 am, or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, PAUL J. FISHMAN, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey (ALLAN B. K. URGENT, Assistant United States Attorney, appearing), as attorney for Defendants United States of America and United States Marshals Service, will apply to this Court for an Order dismissing Plaintiff Kategia R. Binion’s tort claim against the United States Marshals Service based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for an Order transferring the Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 19 Plaintiff’s tort claim against the United States to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In support of this motion, the Court is respectfully referred to the attached Brief, Affidavits and Proposed Order. The Defendants request that this motion be decided on the papers submitted, without oral argument, pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted, PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney s/Allan B. K. Urgent By: ALLAN B. K. URGENT Assistant United States Attorney Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Allan B. K. Urgent, hereby certify that I caused to be served a copy of the within Notice of Motion, Brief, Affidavits and Proposed Order through the Court’s CM/ECF system on October 5, 2016, upon the following person: Lorraine M. Medeiros, Esq. Law Offices of Lorraine M. Medeiros, Esq. 56 Ferry Street, 1st Floor Newark, NJ 07105 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Executed on this 5th day of October, 2016. s/Allan B. K. Urgent Allan B. K. Urgent Assistant United States Attorney Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 21 PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney ALLAN B. K. URGENT Assistant United States Attorney 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 Newark, NJ 07102 Tel.: (973) 297-2079 Fax: (973) 297-2010 E-mail: allan.urgent@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KATEGIA R. BINION, Plaintiff, v. DALY P. THOMAS and U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, and John Doe(s) 1-10 (names being fictitious), Defendants. HON. MADELINE COX ARLEO Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-06078-MCA- MAH BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE PAUL J. FISHMAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Attorney for Defendants ALLAN B. K. URGENT Assistant United States Attorney On the Brief Motion Return Date: November 7, 2016 Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 22 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... iii STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 2 I. The United States Marshals Service Is Not a Proper Party. ............................ 2 II. The Interests of Justice Favor Transfer of this Case. ....................................... 4 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 8 Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 13 PageID: 23 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases AT&T v. MCI, 736 F. Supp. 1294 (D.N.J. 1990) ................................................................................ 7 Bailey v. U.S. Marshals Service Headquarters, 426 F. App’x 44 (3d Cir. 2011) ................................................................................... 4 CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ 2 Jama v. U.S. I.N.S., 22 F. Supp. 2d 353 (D.N.J. 1998) ............................................................................... 4 Job Haines Home for the Aged v. Young, 936 F. Supp. 223 (D.N.J. 1995) .................................................................................. 7 Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................... 5, 6 Kieffer v. Vilk, 8 F. Supp. 2d 387 (D.N.J. 1998) ................................................................................. 4 Lashway v. Groshnans, 661 N.Y.S.2d 67 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) ...................................................................... 8 Licari v. Elliot, 441 N.E.2d 1088 (N.Y. 1982) ..................................................................................... 8 Lightfoot v. United States, 564 F.3d 625 (3d Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................ 3 Linwood Trading LTD v. Am. Metal Recycling Servs., No. 14-5782, 2015 WL 5098117 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2015) ....................................... 5, 6 Mendez v. City of New York, 972 N.Y.S.2d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) .................................................................... 8 Pelletier v. Lahm, 975 N.Y.S.2d 135 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) .................................................................... 8 Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................ 2 Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 13 PageID: 24 iv Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1 (1962) ........................................................................................................ 8 Roma v. United States, 344 F.2d 352 (3d Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 3 Santi v. Nat’l Bus. Records Mgmt., LLC, 722 F. Supp. 2d 602 (D.N.J. 2010) ............................................................................. 5 Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) ...................................................................................................... 4 Stuyvesant v. United States, No. 05-5254, 2007 WL 1931292 (D.N.J. June 29, 2007) ........................................... 5 United States v. Bein, 214 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................ 3 United States v. Craig, 694 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 3 Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) .................................................................................................... 5 White-Squire v. U.S. Postal Serv., 592 F.3d 453 (3d Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................ 3 Windt v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 529 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................ 6 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 112(b) .......................................................................................................... 2 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 3, 5, 8 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b) ........................................................................................................ 5 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ............................................................................................ 2, 4, 5, 6 28 U.S.C. § 2679(a) ........................................................................................................ 4 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i) .......................................................................................................... 1 Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 4 of 13 PageID: 25 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This action arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on July 9, 2014 on the Bronx River Parkway, in the Borough of Bronx, County of Bronx, in the State of New York. See Dkt. Entry No. 1, Notice of Removal, Ex. A, Compl., Count One, ¶¶ 1, 4, and Second Count, ¶¶ 4, 6. Plaintiff Kategia R. Binion (“Binion”) alleges that during the accident at issue an individual named Gil Gustavo, Jr., was driving a vehicle that changed lanes from the center lane to the right lane and then slammed on the brakes. Compl. Count One, ¶ 2. Mr. Gustavo’s vehicle then swerved right and braked hard causing Binion to swerve right attempting to avoid colliding with Mr. Gustavo’s vehicle when Binion’s vehicle was struck by a vehicle owned by the United States Marshals Service and operated by Daly P. Thomas. Id. Binion is a resident of the Township of Belleville, New Jersey. She commenced this action on July 8, 2016 in the Superior Court of New Jersey against Daly P. Thomas and the United States Marshals Service seeking damages for personal injuries that she allegedly sustained in the July 9, 2014 accident. See Dkt. Entry 1 (Notice of Removal), Ex. A, Compl.1 1 Records provided to the United States Attorney’s Office on October 5, 2016, show that the Superior Court Summons and Complaint were served on the United States Marshals Service in Landover, MD, on August 1, 2016. See Aff. of Parsippany Howard dated August 2, 2016. Service was attempted, but not completed, on Daly P. Thomas at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. See Aff. of Donald DelPrete dated July 27, 2016. Service was not made upon the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Attorney’s Office as required to effect service on the United States and its agencies, corporations, officers or employees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i). Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 5 of 13 PageID: 26 2 On September 28, 2016, the United States of America was substituted as a defendant in this action in the place of its employee Daly P. Thomas pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), and this action was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey to this federal district court. See Dkt. Entry 1 (Notice of Removal) and Exhibit B, Certification of Scope of Employment. The Defendants now move to dismiss this action as against the United States Marshal Service, a federal agency, since the United States Marshal Service is not a proper defendant in an action brought under the FTCA. The Defendants further move to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ARGUMENT I. The United States Marshals Service Is Not a Proper Party. A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction may be brought at any time during the litigation. See CNA v. United States, 535 F.3d 132, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2008). A defendant may contest subject matter jurisdiction by attacking the face of the complaint (i.e., a facial attack) or by attacking the existence of subject matter jurisdiction as a matter of fact (i.e., a factual attack). See, e.g., Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006). Here, a facial attack is being made as to the claim asserted in the Complaint against the United States Marshals Service. 2 The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York encompasses Bronx County, New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(b). Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 6 of 13 PageID: 27 3 “It is a fundamental principle of sovereign immunity that federal courts do not have jurisdiction over suits against the United States unless Congress, via a statute, expressly and unequivocally waives the United States’ immunity to suit.” United States v. Craig, 694 F.3d 509, 511 (3d Cir. 2012). “When the Government does consent to be sued, ‘the terms of [the] waiver of sovereign immunity define the extent of the court’s jurisdiction.’” United States v. Bein, 214 F.3d 408, 412 (3d Cir. 2000). “Waivers of the Government’s sovereign immunity, to be effective, must be unequivocally expressed, and any such waiver must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign.” Id. “The FTCA operates as a limited waiver of the United States’s sovereign immunity.” White-Squire v. U.S. Postal Serv., 592 F.3d 453, 456 (3d Cir. 2010). The FTCA gives the federal district courts exclusive jurisdiction over certain claims against the United States for money damages “for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). Since the FTCA constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity, the Act’s established procedures have been strictly construed. Lightfoot v. United States, 564 F.3d 625, 627 (3d Cir. 2009); Roma v. United States, 344 F.2d 352, 362 (3d Cir. 2003). Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 7 of 13 PageID: 28 4 In this action, Binion improperly named the United States Marshals Service as a defendant. “There is no disputing that under the plain language of [28 U.S.C.] § 2679(a) the United States, and not an agency of the United States, is the only proper defendant in tort actions arising from the alleged negligent or wrongful conduct of federal employees.” Jama v. U.S. I.N.S., 22 F. Supp. 2d 353, 366 (D.N.J. 1998); see also Bailey v. U.S. Marshals Service Headquarters, 426 F. App’x 44, 45-46 (3d Cir. 2011) (plaintiff’s claims against the United States Marshals Service and a warden failed as a matter of law because the United States is the only proper defendant in an action under the FTCA); Kieffer v. Vilk, 8 F. Supp. 2d 387, 393 (D.N.J. 1998) (holding that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint as asserted against the Postal Inspection Service). Accordingly, the Court should dismiss the United States Marshals Service as a party to this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. II. The Interests of Justice Favor Transfer of this Case. The United States respectfully submits that transfer of this action to the Southern District of New York is appropriate, warranted and, in the interest of judicial economy, highly desirable. Section 1404(a) of Title 28, United States Code, provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The decision of whether to transfer a case is committed to the sound discretion of the Court. Stewart Organization, Inc. Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 8 of 13 PageID: 29 5 v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988); Santi v. Nat’l Bus. Records Mgmt., LLC, 722 F. Supp. 2d 602, 606 (D.N.J. 2010). Binion originally commenced this action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, which is an improper forum because that court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under the FTCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (providing that the United States district courts have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States under the FTCA). The Government acknowledges that Binion could have filed this case in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b), which provides: “[a]ny civil action on a tort claim against the United States under subsection (b) of Section 1346 of this title may be prosecuted only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b). According to that provision, venue is also proper in the Southern District of New York, which is the judicial district “wherein the act or omission complained of occurred.” Id. The purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is to “prevent the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). The burden of establishing that a transfer is appropriate falls upon the moving party. Stuyvesant v. United States, No. 05-5254, 2007 WL 1931292, *2 (D.N.J. June 29, 2007) (citing Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995)). In assessing whether a transfer is appropriate, courts apply a balancing test that considers the private and public interests affected by the transfer. Linwood Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 9 of 13 PageID: 30 6 Trading LTD v. Am. Metal Recycling Servs., No. 14-5782, 2015 WL 5098117, *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2015) (citing Windt v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 529 F.3d 183, 189 (3d Cir. 2009)). “While there is no definitive formula or list of factors to consider . . . courts have considered many variants of the private and public interests protected by the language of § 1404(a).” Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). The following private interests have been considered: (1) plaintiff’s forum preference as manifested in the original choice; (2) the defendant’s forum preference; (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; (5) the convenience of the witness, but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and (6) the location of books and records, limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum. Id. at 879 (citations omitted). The following public interests have been considered: (1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; (3) the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; (4) the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; (5) the public policies of the fora; and (6) the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases. Id. at 879-880 (citations omitted). Courts have “broad discretion in making determinations under Section 1404(a), and convenience and fairness are considered on a case-by-case basis.” Linwood Trading Ltd., 2015 WL 5098117, at *1. Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 10 of 13 PageID: 31 7 Here, the balance of the private and public interests weighs in favor of transferring this case to the Southern District of New York. Binion’s tort claim arises from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in New York. A federal district court in New York is a more convenient venue for this case because other than Binion, all of the witnesses are from New York. The only connection that the District of New Jersey has with this case is Binion’s residence at the time when she filed her Complaint. The sources of proof, with the exception of Binion herself, are located in New York. Although the plaintiff’s choice of forum is significant, it is not dispositive. Where the lawsuit’s operative facts occurred outside of the forum that the plaintiff selected, as here, that choice is entitled to less deference. Job Haines Home for the Aged v. Young, 936 F. Supp. 223, 228 (D.N.J. 1995); AT&T v. MCI, 736 F. Supp. 1294, 1306 (D.N.J. 1990). With respect to the public interests, court congestion is a factor that weighs in favor of transfer. Statistics available on the United States Courts website indicate that the District of New Jersey is more congested than the Southern District of New York. See Federal Court Management Statistics (June 30, 2016) available at http://www.uscourts.gov/report-name/federal-court-management- statistics. For example, for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2016, the median time from the date of filing a civil case to its trial date was 47.8 months in New Jersey, as opposed to 25.1 months in the Southern District of New York. Moreover, under the FTCA the United States may only be held liable “under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would liable to the Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 11 of 13 PageID: 32 8 claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) (emphasis added). Since the accident at issue occurred in the State of New York, the substantive law of New York governs whether the United States may be found liable under the circumstances. See Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 9 (1962). The allegations contained in the Complaint implicate New York State’s motor vehicle laws including New York’s emergency doctrine affirmative defense, see, e.g., Mendez v. City of New York, 972 N.Y.S.2d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013) and Pelletier v. Lahm, 975 N.Y.S.2d 135 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013), and New York’s insurance laws which include a serious injury threshold, see, e.g., Licari v. Elliot, 441 N.E.2d 1088, 1091 (N.Y. 1982) and Lashway v. Groshnans, 661 N.Y.S.2d 67 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). The interest in having local controversies decided at home, and the court’s familiarity with local law favor trial in the Southern District of New York. Finally, the interest of justice favors trial of this case in New York because the acts complained of occurred there and the bulk of the witnesses are located there. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court should dismiss the United States Marshals Service as a party to this action. Additionally, the Court should transfer the Plaintiff’s tort claim against the United States to the United States District Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 12 of 13 PageID: 33 9 Court for the Southern District of New York. Dated: Newark, New Jersey October 5, 2016 Respectfully submitted, PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney By: s/Allan B. K. Urgent ALLAN B. K. URGENT Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendants Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-1 Filed 10/05/16 Page 13 of 13 PageID: 34 Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-2 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 35 Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-2 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 36 Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-2 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 37 PAUL J. FISHMAN United States Attorney ALLAN B. K. URGENT Assistant United States Attorney 970 Broad Street, Suite 700 Newark, NJ 07102 Tel.: (973) 297-2079 Fax: (973) 297-2010 allan.urgent@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY KATEGIA R. BINION, Plaintiff, v. DALY P. THOMAS and U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE, and John Doe(s) 1-10 (names being fictitious), Defendants. HON. MADELINE COX ARLEO Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-06078-MCA- MAH ORDER This matter having been opened to the Court by Defendant United States of America through its attorney, Paul J. Fishman, United States Attorney (Allan B. K. Urgent, Assistant United States Attorney, appearing), for an Order dismissing the tort claim asserted by Plaintiff Kategia R. Binion against the United States Marshals Service, and transferring the tort claim against the United States to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the Court having considered the matter, and for good cause shown, IT IS on this day of , 2016 Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-3 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 38 ORDERED that Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss is hereby granted. Plaintiff’s tort claim against the United States Marshals Service is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to transfer the Plaintiff’s tort claim against the United States to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is granted. ______________________________ HON. MADELINE COX ARLEO United States District Judge Case 2:16-cv-06078-MCA-MAH Document 2-3 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 39