Taubman Sucks!

TaubmanSucks.com
WillowBendSucks.com
WillowBendMallSucks.com
ShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
TheShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
GiffordKrassGrohSprinkleSucks.com

Act 22: I Move for a Change of Venue

On October 22, 2001, a lawyer who had emailed a couple of helpful hints to me sent me one more. "Another thing I note," he said, "is that they shouldn't be suing you in Michigan." He went on to say that if I had objected to the venue (Detroit) before I had responded to any motions, I might have been able to get the case moved to Dallas; however, he said, by filing responses in Detroit, I may have "implicitly consented to jurisdiction" there. Then again, I may not have.

So, you ask: Why didn't I object when Ms. Greenberg filed the case in Detroit?

In her Complaint, Ms. Greenberg had stated, flatly, "This Court has jurisdiction," and, "Venue is proper." And as embarrassing as this is to admit, I'm afraid that I took her word for it. It simply didn't occur to me that she would make such definitive statements to the Court unless it was pretty much of an open-and-shut case (so to speak) that she was right. (And who knows, maybe she was.)

My helpful correspondent pointed me to the relevant sections of the United States Code – and when I looked them up on the Web and pored over the legalese, it sure looked to me like these sections were saying that the case should have been filed in Dallas, where I live. The spooky part is that Ms. Greenberg had cited the exact same sections to support her contention that the case was properly filed in Detroit!

The United State Code, by the way, is online at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/toc.html

Anyway, I decided that, since I was now an experienced motion-filer, I should go ahead and see if I could get the case moved down here to Dallas, where I would have a home-field advantage.

(Note: I have not included the "Certificate of Service.")

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 01-72987

v.

Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff

WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF, Magistrate Judge Komives

Defendants.

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

Defendants hereby request that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas which is located in Dallas, Texas, Defendants' city of residence.

Venue Generally

According to United States Code Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 87, Section 1391:

(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

(b) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.

Obviously, Plaintiff has initiated this action in the wrong venue. Defendants reside in Dallas, the event giving rise to the claim (the creation of the website) occurred in Dallas, and the property that is the subject of the action (Plaintiff's shopping mall) is situated in Plano, Texas, a Dallas suburb.

Change of Venue

According to United States Code Title 28, Part IV, Chapter 87, Section 1404:

(a) 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.

While Plaintiff might argue that the existing venue is more convenient for Plaintiff, Plaintiff is a large corporation with extensive resources. "Defendants" may be the legally correct term in these proceedings, but there is actually only one Defendant in this case, an individual with limited resources, for whom travel to the existing venue would be prohibitively expensive. The burden of a change in venue would be light on Plaintiff; however, the burden of the existing venue would be extremely heavy for Defendant. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a change of venue is a reasonable request.

Timing

Defendants fear that this request may be denied by the Court strictly because of its timing, rather than its merit. Defendants respectfully ask the Court to be understanding of the fact that Defendants do not have legal representation, and were not aware until yesterday that a change of venue was even possible.

In Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff stated that "this Court has jurisdiction"; Defendants assumed that this was a factual statement, and have thus responded to the complaint and responded to and filed motions in this Court. As soon as Defendants learned that Plaintiff's representation was in error, Defendants created and submitted this request. Defendants hope that the Court will accept this request as a good-faith effort to satisfy all filing requirements, and, in the interest of justice, will not rule against this request strictly because of its timing.

Respectfully submitted,

Henry Mishkoff
WebFeats
2661 Midway Road, #224-225
Carrollton, TX 75006
972.931.5421

Defendants

Dated: October 23, 2001