Foundation Medical LLC v. National Strategic Group, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia
DecidedMarch 22, 2022
Docket3:21-cv-00732
StatusUnknown

This text of Foundation Medical LLC v. National Strategic Group, LLC (Foundation Medical LLC v. National Strategic Group, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Foundation Medical LLC v. National Strategic Group, LLC, (E.D. Va. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division

VINCENT NARDONE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-731 NATIONAL STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC & NEW LIFE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, Defendants.

FOUNDATION MEDICAL LLC, Plaintiff, Vv. Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-732 NATIONAL STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC & NEW LIFE RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, Defendants.

OPINION The defendants, National Strategic Group, LLC (“NSG”) and New Life Recovery Solutions (“New Life”), move to transfer venue to the Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Case No. 3:21cv731, ECF No. 7; Case No. 3:21c¢v732, ECF No. 11.) Because the applicable venue considerations— including deference to the plaintiffs’ choice of venue, the convenience of the parties, and the interest of justice—collectively weigh against transferring venue, the Court denies the defendants’ motions to transfer venue. I. BACKGROUND Foundation Medical LLC (“Foundation”) owns and operates an outpatient addiction treatment clinic in Midlothian, Virginia. (Case No. 3:21¢v732, ECF No. 978.) In January 2019,

FoundhaitrNieSodGn - ano nlmianrek esteirnvcgio cmepsba ansyie nOd h ioa-stsoii ns t expanFdoiunngd aptaitboianeis'nVnesti rg(iIn,rd.i5,r a1, .4 -2118C;,a Nsoe3. : 21cEvC7F3 2, No1.1 a,t3 .U)n dtheerar rangeNmSeGcn rte,aa tnmedad i ntaaw ienbestdioa t dev ertise Foundasteirov1n i('cCsea sNs.oe.3 :21cEvC7FN3 o2.9, ,r ,r20 -2F1o.u)n dtaotoiko n photoogfrMiaetpdshi Dsci arleD crVt.io nrNc,are dnotfon rme a,r kpeutripnfoogrts hweees b s2 ite. (I,rd.2,r 34 ,5 .F)o undsaettnihtoep nsh eo totgNorS aGpw,hh sip cohs ttheeodmn t hwee bsite. (I,rd.2 6.)

IAnp r2i0l2F 0o,un datteiromnii ntaasgt reedew miNetSnhGfot r t wroe asFoinNrsSs.Gt , bofatihl tedode ltihvpeea rtg ireoniwtptt r ho muinsdteehdcre o ntarnasdce,tc N,oS nGda ,c tively offeirtemsda rkseetrivntigFoc o eusn dactoimopnei'ttnsih Rteio crhs maroena(d.I,r d.3,r 6 -37, 40N.o)t withtshtteea rnmdiionnftag hct eoi notnNr SaGcc otn,t timona uiensat naodip net rhaet e websaiisfrt soe mi tOsh iooffi c3e (.ICd.a;Ns oe3. : 21cEvC7NF3o 12.1, a, 3t - 4I.ct)o ntinues tod isDprlN.aa yr dopnheo'tsoe gvretanhp ohhu egn hol oncgoenrs teoin tutsss e( .C aNsoe. 3:21cEvC7F3N92o,r,.4,r 54 ,8 F.u)r tthhdeeer fe,n dnaounwst teshw ee btsdoii trepe rcots pectiv cliteFono tusn dactoimopnei'tVnsii trogriisnn cilaNu,ed wLi infe(g.I ,r d.4,r 6 -44975,,1 .) FoundaantDdir oN.na rdbornoeu sgehpta lraawtseau giatitsnh dseet fe ndma nts

ChestCeorufiCneitlrydCc ouuisrtet e,ka inin ngj undcatmiaaognneadt,s r ,a nostffeh wree bsite's ownertFsooh uinpd (aCtaNisoo3e.n: .2 1cEvC7NF3o 11.-, a3 1t,5, C; a Nsoe3. : 21-EcCvF- 732, No1.- a3t1, , 1 2.T)h dee fendraenmtotsv heceda steots h Ciosu bretc aoufds iev eorfs ity

1T hwee bsuinitfoermr' ess oluorcc(ae"t UoRriL ws"w )w .richmondsuboxoned (CaNso3e.: 21cEvC7NF3o 92.,r , 2 0.) 2F oundoawtnaislco lon p yroitfgh pheht ost o(gIr,rd.a2 p5h..) 3A lthtohuCego hur retc ogtnhtiahzwtee e sb sniolt oena gpeprea acrtosint v hIeen ternet, thCeo udrits ctuhsfaesc aetasssl lietngh ecedo mpl(aSiiend,ret. 4,r. 1 -51.) citizenship.* (Case No. 3:21cv731, ECF No. 1, at 1; Case No. 3:21¢v732, ECF No. 1, at 1.) The defendants then moved to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Case No. 3:21cv731, ECF No. 7; Case No. 3:21¢v732, ECF No. 11.) II. ANALYSIS Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district ... where it may be brought.” This includes any “judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.”> Jd. § 1391(b)(2). When deciding whether to transfer venue, courts must consider “(1) the weight accorded to [the] plaintiff's choice of venue; (2) witness convenience and access; (3) convenience of the parties; and (4) the interest of justice.” Trs. ofthe Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat’l Pension Fund vy. Plumbing Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 436, 444 (4th Cir. 2015). “The party seeking transfer bears the burden of proving that the circumstances of the case are strongly in favor of transfer.” Phillips v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 3:15cv544, 2016 WL 165024, at *1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2016) (quoting Heinz Kettler GMBH & Co. v. Razor USA, LLC, 750 F. Supp. 2d 660, 667 (E.D. Va. 2010) (emphasis in original)). The defendants fail to meet this high burden. Most of the applicable venue considerations—including deference to plaintiffs’ chosen forum, convenience of the parties, and the interest of justice—favor keeping the cases in this District.

4 Both Foundation and Dr. Nardone reside in Virginia. (Case No. 3:21cv731, ECF No. 1 § 3; Case No. 3:21cv732, ECF No. 9 { 4.) In contrast, NSG and New Life qualify as Ohio and Kansas citizens, respectively. (Case No. 3:21cv732, ECF No. 1 J 6—7.) > For purposes of this Opinion, the Court assumes that the Northern District of Ohio has personal jurisdiction over both defendants. See Koh v. Microtek Int'l, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 627, 630 (E.D. Va. 2005) (“[M]ovant[s] must establish that both venue and jurisdiction with respect to each defendant is proper in the transferee district.”).

A.PlainCthiffoosif'Vc een ue Ast hpel aincthiovffsesen'ntu heiD,si sdtreiscetsr uvbesstd aenfetrifoearnvl ce en ue purpo"s[epAsl].a i'ncthiooff'vfise c neiue sen ttisotu lbesdtw aeniitgdnihe attl e rwmhientihnegr traniasspfe prr opPrliuamtSbeei.rn"Ivg'ns 7c.9.,F1,3 . da 4t4 (4q uoBtd.oi fnTgvr S.su .l livant AvPer.o LpLsC5.,0,F 8 .S up2pd4. 7 3,(4E7.V7Da 2..0 0).7B) uitf p"laa icnhtoioafoffs r eesi gn foruamn tdhc ea uosafec tbieoalnri sot nrto lr ee latttohi foaortnu tmh,pe l aicnhtoivsfeefnnsu e inso etn tittosl uescduh b stwaenitgTiheatll.e "p hSaorlImsna.vccP,..yi ckpCooirn2pt3. F8,.

Sup2pd7. 4 714,(3 E .VDa2..0 0)(3 quoCtoignngi ItrmoangSiiycnIssgn.v c,R.. e cogRnsicthi.o n In8c3.F ,.S up2pd6. 8 699,(6E .VDa2..0 0).0) FirtshitsD, i sctorniscttti hptelu atiehnsot mifoffers u'bm e cabuostpehl airnetsiiffdse he6r See.c tohnceda ,uo safec tsiuobns traenlttaitotah elDislis ys tArlitchNtoSG.uc grhe aantde d manatghweeed b osuiottife to sf fiicOneh iFoo,u ndcaotnitorwnai NcthSt Gfoe rdt hseop luerp ose oafd verttVoii srigrniegns iipada ernttisic,tnu h Rileca hrmloaryne da( .C aNso3e.: 2c1v 7E3C2F, No9.,r 1,r8 -2119E;,C NFo 1.1 a,3t -4 .N)o tatbhlweye ,b siteF oduinsdpalotaffiiycoeend ' s addrienMs isd loVtihrigaainnnt,dih waee, b sUiRLt eev'ecsno nttahwieon r"sd[ R]ichmond (CaNsoe3. : 2lcEvC7NF3o 29.,r, 4,r,2 03,0 .F)u rthetrhpmelo ariecn,ot nittffehstna hdte y

direscutfflelyro ersdet v eannrudee p uthaartmii onV niarlga isanr ieaso uftl htde e fendants'

6 DNra.r droenseii Vndi ersg (iCnaNisoa3e..: 21lcE,vC 7F3N1 o,r 3. .A )n Fdo undation' prinpcliaopcfble ue s iinMsei sdsl oVtihriga(inCn,aNi soa3e..: 21cEvC7NF3o 92.,r , 4 ; s) e2e8 U.CS.§.1 39)l( (ecxpltahiaacn toi rnpgo "rsahtbaiedlo elne mteord e sidiena nj.yu. d.i cial disitwnrh iicsctuh dc ehfe nidssau nbttj thoe ecc to upretr'ssjo unrailsw diirtcehts itpotoenh c et ciavcitlii qnou ne s"tD)ia;oi nmAlGve B.ra um5a7nU1,.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Koh v. Microtek International, Inc.
250 F. Supp. 2d 627 (E.D. Virginia, 2003)
Heinz Kettler GMBH & Co. v. RAZOR USA, LLC
750 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Virginia, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Foundation Medical LLC v. National Strategic Group, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foundation-medical-llc-v-national-strategic-group-llc-vaed-2022.