Civil Practice – Venue – S.C. & Florida Actions – First Filed Rule – Broader Action

Listen to this article

Scardino v. Electronic Health Resources, LLC (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-082-16, 14 pp.) (Patrick Michael Duffy, J.) 2:14-cv-02900; D.S.C.

Holding: Although plaintiff’s legal relationship with defendants is an important common thread in both this lawsuit and another in federal court in Florida, the Florida case is far broader in scope that the South Carolina case; thus, the two cases are not sufficiently similar to give the South Carolina case priority under the first-filed rule.

The court transfers this action to the Northern District of Florida.

Given the overlap in the two cases, they should be litigated together in a single forum. Rather than greatly expand the issues before this court, the more prudent choice is for the larger Florida case to absorb the smaller South Carolina one.

The South Carolina case is, at its core, about plaintiff’s relationship with a northern Florida company. Meanwhile, the Florida case is about whether that northern Florida company was slandered and improperly deprived of property and business opportunities. The issues in both cases lead back to Florida, making that state’s connection to the cases much stronger than that of South Carolina.

Furthermore, most of the identified key witnesses in these cases live in Florida. In contrast, the only confirmed South Carolina witness is plaintiff.

Although plaintiff’s burden of litigating in Florida is relevant, the benefits for the courts and known witnesses outweigh it.

It is true that the South Carolina case is far older than the Florida case. Nevertheless, other than the venue question that this order addresses, the only significant issue the parties have brought before this court is whether it has jurisdiction over defendants. The court has not addressed that threshold question except to say that it lacked sufficient information to make a decision and to order the parties to gather additional evidence.

The court’s investment of resources has been minimal, and its limited knowledge of the issues is not superior to that of the Florida district court. Under these unusual circumstances, the South Carolina case’s age has no significance in this court’s venue analysis.

Transferred to the Northern District of Florida.