MOTION IN RESPONSE

Regina R. Wims

(Plaintiff Pro Se)

PO Box 5471

Gainesville, FL 32627

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ALACHUA COUNTY DIVISION

MOTION IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

COMES NOW Plaintiff, REGINA R. WIMS, Pro-se hereby files this Motion in Response to the Court’s Order to File Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint by making the following changes:  

1. Removing Counts 1 and 2 thereof.
2. Providing the nexus requirement in counts 3, 4, 5, and 8 for the 42 U.S.C 1983 allegations.
3. Removing Count 7 thereof.
4. Removing Counts 9 and 10 thereof.

Plaintiff has attached herein the Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff also seeks to seek this Court’s leave to change the venue of the case to a different location.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff had filed a Motion for a Restraining Order against Besty Boyle, a Defendant in this action. In the said Motion, Plaintiff alleged inter alia, that she was not comfortable having the said Defendant around her.

On or about August 19, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Motion on the ground that it was facially deficient. The Court also made notable observations regarding Plaintiff’s Complaint, and duly advised Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint.

ARGUMENTS

1. Amendment of the Complaint

Rules 15(a)(2) provides for amendments with the Court’s leave. There is a “strong liberality . . . in allowing amendments under Rule 15(a).”  Bechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 652 (3d Cir. 1989). It follows; Rule 15(a) should be liberally construed. Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 990 (5th Cir. 1981). Further, a “court may refuse a motion for leave to amend only in limited circumstances, such as when the amendment would cause undue delay; is offered in bad faith or with dilatory motive; or if the amendment is futile.” AT&T v. Marstan Indus. Inc., No. 93-2961, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8294 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

In the instant case, it would be in the interest of justice for the Court to grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint by making the said adjustments.

1. Change of Venue

“[T]he basic function of venue statutes is to set a fair and convenient location for trial.” Voit v. Madison Newspapers Inc., 116 Wis. 2d 217, 224, 341 N.W.2.d 693 (1984).  

To support a motion for change of venue, the party must establish: (1) that venue is proper; (2) that the venue is one where the action might have been brought; and (3) that the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the interests of justice. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F.Supp. 503, 506 (C.D. Cal.1992).

Once venue is determined to be proper, courts evaluate the following factors to determine which venue is more convenient to the parties and the witnesses and will promote the interests of justice: (1) plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. See Williams v. Bowman, 157 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2001).

The party seeking the transfer must also satisfy the Court’s jurisdiction requirements. In federal law, jurisdiction is attained in two ways: Personal Jurisdiction, and Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Personal Jurisdiction refers to the power of a federal court to hear and determine a lawsuit involving a defendant by virtue of the defendant having some contact with the place where the court is located. See International Shoe v Washington, 326 US 310 (1945). This means, either the Defendant lives in that State or conducts business in that State.

In Subject matter jurisdiction, the court must have jurisdiction over the dispute in the case. This means, there are specific cases that the federal courts hear. The two primary sources of the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts are diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally permits individuals to bring claims in federal court where the claim exceeds $75,000 and the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Federal question jurisdiction requires that the federal element appears on the face of a well-plead complaint, is a substantial component of the complainant’s claim, and is of significant federal interest. Federal question subject-matter jurisdiction is frequently derived from federal statutes granting a cause of action to parties who have suffered a particular injury. Furthermore, it is important to note that 28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides for supplemental jurisdiction in federal courts. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to adjudicate a claim over which it does not have independent subject-matter jurisdiction, on the basis that the claim is related to a claim over which the federal court does have independent jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, these premises considered, Plaintiff files the Second Amended Complaint, and requests this Court to grant leave to change the venue of the case.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: ______

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

I, REGINA R. WIMS, certified on this  day of  .2021, I deposited a true copy of the above to the Defendants by placing the documents with prepaid postage in the United States mailbox address to each person.

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )