FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01m2018 02:17 PM
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`NYSC 3F DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`106
`.
`
`INDEX N0. 518372/2017 l
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`R«.C«.IV«.D \IYSCEF: 01/03/2018 ;
`
`EXHIBIT “K”
`
`
`
`

`

`PM
`: 29
`11/15/2017
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`FILED:
`CLERK
`02
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`-cv-
`-LT
`50âSe
`l:10-CV-08442-LTS
`10/28/11
`Document56
`Filed
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`Pag@st
`YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`COURT
`DISTRICT
`STATES
`UNITED
`OF NEW YORK
`SOUTHERN
`DISTRICT
`
`-X
`
`DOCUMWir
`4 EXKTRONICAUT
`
`DATE
`
`MLED:
`
`WADE
`
`ROBERTSON,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-v-
`
`WILLIAM
`
`C. CARTINHOURe_t
`
`al,
`
`Defendants.
`
`- —- " - ——-" —-X
`
`MIPED
`
`2 8 DCT
`
`208
`
`½
`
`No.
`
`10 Civ.
`
`8442
`
`(LTS)(HBP)
`
`MEMORANDUMORDERGRANTING
`
`MOTIONSTO
`
`TRANSFER
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Wade Robertson
`
`("Plaintiff"
`
`or
`
`"Robertson"
`"Robertson")
`
`brings
`
`this
`
`action
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`William
`
`C. Cartinhour,
`
`Jr.
`.lr.
`
`("Cartinhour"),
`
`Albert
`
`Schibani,
`
`Patrick
`
`J. Keamey,
`
`Michael
`
`Bramnick,
`
`Robert
`
`S. Selzer,
`
`Carlton
`
`T. Obeeny,
`
`James G. Dattaro,
`
`Neil Gurvitch,
`
`Andrew
`
`R. Polott,
`
`H. Mark
`
`Rabin,
`
`Elyse
`
`L. Strickland
`
`(collectively,
`
`the "Attorney
`
`Defendants"
`Defendants"),
`
`Vesna
`
`Kustudic,
`
`Tanja Milicevic
`
`(a.k.a.
`
`Tanja Popovic),
`
`and Aleksander
`
`Popovic.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`18 U.S.C.
`
`for
`
`asserts RICO claims
`
`under
`
`§§ 1962(c)
`
`and (d), as well
`
`as claims
`
`fraud,
`
`defamation,
`
`and tortious
`
`interference.
`
`The Court
`
`has jurisdiction
`
`of
`
`the action
`
`pursuant
`
`to 28 IJ.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331
`
`and
`
`1367.
`
`Defendants
`
`have moved
`
`to dismiss
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`claims
`
`or,
`
`in the alternative,
`
`to transfer
`
`this action
`
`to the United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`(the "D.C.
`
`Court"
`Court"),
`
`or
`
`to stay
`
`this
`
`action
`
`pending
`
`a determination
`
`of
`
`the related
`
`case before
`
`the D.C. Court.
`
`After
`
`Defendants
`
`tiled
`
`their motion
`
`to dismiss,
`
`the D.C. Court
`
`entered
`
`a judgment
`
`in favor
`
`of
`
`Defendant
`
`Cartinhour
`
`in the related
`
`case.
`
`Subsequently,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`moved
`
`for,
`
`inter
`
`alia,
`
`a stay of
`
`ROBFRTSONY.('AI<TINIIOuB.VI'PD
`
`'l I fciflP,
`
`lit Bit
`
`l I
`
`I
`
`

`

`KINGS
`COUNTY
`11/15/2017
`CLERK
`: 29
`:
`[FILED
`02
`PH
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`50aSe
`1:10-cv-08442-LTS
`56
`Document
`RIed
`10/28/11
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`5183 /Z / ZU1 1
`1NDEX NO.
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`Pag@alf)(di.@YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`the instant
`
`action
`
`and an order
`
`authorizing
`
`alternate
`
`service
`
`on Defendant
`
`Milicevic.
`
`For
`
`the
`
`following
`
`reasons,
`
`Defendants'
`
`motion
`
`is granted
`
`to the extent
`
`that
`
`this
`
`case is transferred
`
`to the
`
`D.C. Court.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`motion
`
`for a stay and for authorization
`
`of alternative
`
`service
`
`is denied.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Unless
`
`otherwise
`
`noted,
`
`the following
`
`facts
`
`are alleged
`
`in the complaint
`
`and taken
`
`as true for purposes
`
`of
`
`this motion
`
`practice.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Wade Robertson
`
`is an attorney
`
`and resident
`
`of Tennessee.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 3, 20.)
`
`Defendant
`
`William
`
`C. Cartinbour
`
`lives
`
`and operates
`
`businesses
`
`in the Washington,
`
`D.C.
`
`- Maryland
`
`- Virginia
`
`metropolitan
`
`area.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 25.)
`
`In
`
`September
`
`2004,
`
`Robertson
`
`and Cartinhour
`
`formed
`
`a partnership,
`
`W.A.R.
`
`LLP
`
`("W.A.R."
`
`or
`
`the
`
`"Partnership"
`"Partnership"),
`
`in the District
`
`of Columbia,
`
`through
`
`which
`
`Robertson
`
`was
`
`to work
`
`as an attorney
`
`in connection
`
`with
`
`securities
`
`class
`
`actions,
`
`while
`
`Cartinhour
`
`was
`
`to develop
`
`a related
`
`consulting
`
`business
`
`ancillary
`
`to Robertson's
`
`legal
`
`services.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 30, 35.)
`
`In particular,
`
`Robertson
`
`was to focus
`
`on a securities
`
`class
`
`action,
`
`the "Liu
`
`Action",
`
`that had been filed
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of Florida,
`
`then transferred
`
`to the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 20-24.)
`
`Robertson
`
`and Cartinhour
`
`agreed
`
`to contribute
`
`services
`
`and cash to the partnership,
`
`and that
`
`any
`
`profits
`
`from Robertson's
`
`legal work
`
`or Cartinhour's
`
`consulting
`
`work
`
`would
`
`be reinvested
`
`in the
`
`partnership.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 31.)
`
`Between
`
`September
`
`2004
`
`and April
`
`2006, Cartinhour
`
`contributed
`
`$3.5
`
`n1illion
`
`in cash to the Partnership
`
`and, between
`
`September
`
`2004
`
`and August
`
`2009,
`
`Robertson
`
`contributed
`
`$3.83 million
`
`in services.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 84.)
`
`As part
`
`of
`
`the partnership
`
`agreement,
`
`Cartinhour
`
`signed
`
`an "Indemnification,
`
`Hold Harmless,
`
`and Agreement
`
`to Waive
`
`All
`
`with
`of default
`certificates
`also sought
`motion
`Plaintiff's
`of Court
`have not appeared.
`has issued
`The Clerk
`who
`
`defendants
`to certain
`respect
`certificates.
`the requested
`
`ROULILTSONcAILTlNHOUR.iYPL)
`V.
`
`VI":I<SIC)N10'ZRI I
`
`

`

`: 29
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/15/2017
`: KINGS
`FILED
`02
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`Pli
`-cv-
`56
`Filed
`10/28/11
`5CaSe
`1:10-CV-08442-LT$
`Document
`-LT
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`INDEX
`
`/ Z / ZU1/
`NO. Didd
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`Pli@E%9fdlihYSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`Claims"
`
`document
`
`(the "Indemnification
`
`Agreement"
`Agreement"),
`
`stating
`
`that he would
`
`not
`
`"make
`
`any
`
`claims
`
`or demands,
`
`or
`
`file
`
`any
`
`legal
`
`proceedings
`
`against
`
`[plaintiff]
`
`Wade
`
`A. Robertson,"
`
`including
`
`claims
`
`concerning
`
`"any
`
`future
`
`injuries.
`
`losses,
`
`and damages
`
`not not
`
`known
`
`or
`
`anticipated,
`
`but which may
`
`letter
`
`develop
`
`or be
`
`discovered."
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 66: Af6rmation
`
`of Peter
`
`C. Contino
`
`in Support
`
`re: Motion
`
`to Dismiss,
`
`Exh. D,
`
`lan.
`
`13, 201 1, ECF No.
`
`21.)
`
`Action"
`
`By February
`
`2008, Robertson
`
`had exhausted
`
`all efforts
`
`in the "Liiu
`
`which
`
`yielded
`
`no profit
`
`for
`
`the Partnership.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 69.)
`
`He then began
`
`investigating
`
`another
`
`securities
`
`class
`
`action matter,
`
`on which
`
`he continued
`
`working
`
`until
`
`August
`
`2009.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 71.)
`
`On January
`
`9, 2009,
`
`and February
`
`6, 2009, Cartinhour,
`
`through
`
`his attorney,
`
`Defendant
`
`Albert
`
`Schibani,
`
`contacted
`
`Robertson
`
`demanding
`
`the return
`
`of all
`
`the money
`
`that Cartinhour
`
`had
`
`invested
`
`in the Partnership.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 72, 74.) Robertson
`
`did not
`
`return
`
`any money
`
`to
`
`through
`
`Cartinhour.
`
`On August
`
`14, 2009,
`
`and August
`
`21, 2009, Cartinhour,
`
`his attorney,
`
`Defendant
`
`Carlton
`
`Obeeny,
`
`served
`
`additional
`
`demand
`
`letters
`
`on Robertson
`
`and informed
`
`him
`
`that Cartinhour
`
`would
`
`file
`
`suit
`
`if
`
`the money
`
`was not
`
`returned.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 76.)
`
`The D.C.
`
`Action
`
`In response
`
`to these
`
`demand
`
`letters,
`
`on August
`
`28, 2009, Robertson
`
`filed
`
`a
`
`complaint
`
`in the United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`(the
`
`"D.C.
`
`Action"
`Action")
`
`judgment
`
`enforcing
`
`the Indemnification
`
`Agreement
`
`that Cartinhour
`
`had
`
`seeking
`
`a declaratory
`
`signed.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 79.)
`
`Cartinhour,
`
`through
`
`his attorneys,
`
`Selzer Gurvitch
`
`Rabin & Obeeny,
`
`filed
`
`an answer
`
`and counter-complaint
`
`on October
`
`28, 2009,
`
`and later
`
`filed
`
`an amended
`
`counter-
`
`complaint.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 80.)
`
`The
`
`amended
`
`counter-complaint
`
`asserted
`
`several
`
`claims
`
`against
`
`Robertson,
`
`including
`
`fraud,
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`fiduciary
`
`duty,
`
`breach
`
`of partnership
`
`agreement,
`
`and
`
`negligent
`
`misrepresentation.
`
`(See Compl.
`
`¶ 81.)
`
`Robertson
`
`proceeded
`
`to file
`
`numerous
`
`motions
`
`lVPI)
`Il
`Ill)IJI'fCI'IlIN'i'.( AllIINII( 'll,
`
`4Il<xi<lh I'I < 11
`
`

`

`COUNTY
`CLERK
`KINGS
`: 29
`11/15/2017
`FILED
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`02
`:
`PH
`-cv-
`10/28/11
`5ÇaSel:10-CV-08442-LTS
`Document
`RIed
`56
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`5183/2/2017
`NO.
`INDEX
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`Pag@s4finl
`11/15/2017
`YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`in the D.C. Court
`
`as well
`
`as in the United
`
`States Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`for
`
`the D.C. Circuit.
`
`See, e.g.,
`
`Robertson
`
`v. Cartinhour,
`
`691 F.Supp.
`
`2d 65, 68-74
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`2010);
`
`Robertson
`
`v. Cartinhour,
`
`711
`
`F.Supp.
`
`2d 136 (D.D.C.
`
`2010).
`
`On November
`
`9, 2010, Robertson
`
`filed
`
`the instant
`
`action
`
`in this Court,
`
`alleging
`
`that Cartinhour
`
`and the Attorney
`
`Defendants
`
`had violated
`
`various
`
`federal
`
`laws,
`
`including
`
`RICO,
`
`during
`
`the course
`
`of
`
`the D.C.
`
`Action.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 109-149.)
`
`Shortly
`
`thereafter,
`
`Defendants
`
`filed
`
`motions
`
`to dismiss
`
`or,
`
`in the alternative,
`
`to transfer
`
`this action
`
`to the D.C. Court.
`
`While
`
`Defendants'
`
`motions
`
`were
`
`pending,
`
`the D.C.
`
`Action
`
`went
`
`to trial
`
`and, on February
`
`18, 201 1,„ the
`
`jury
`
`duty
`
`in that action
`
`rendered
`
`a verdict,
`
`finding
`
`that Robertson
`
`was
`
`liable
`
`for breach
`
`of
`
`fiduciary
`
`and for
`
`legal malpractice
`
`and awarding
`
`Cartinhour
`
`$7 million
`
`in compensatory
`
`and punitive
`
`damages.
`
`v. Cartinhour,
`
`No.
`
`2011 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`31959
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`leg Robertson
`
`09-1642,
`
`Mar.
`
`28, 2011).
`
`On March
`
`16, 2011,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Robertson
`
`moved
`
`in this Court
`
`to stay
`
`this
`
`action.
`
`Partnership
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Proceedings
`
`An involuntary
`
`Chapter
`
`11 bankruptcy
`
`petition
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`against
`
`the Partnership
`
`in November
`
`2010.
`
`Thereafter,
`
`issues were
`
`raised,
`
`and decided
`
`against
`
`Robertson
`
`and the
`
`Partnership
`
`in the bankruptcy
`
`and district
`
`courts,
`
`as to whether
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`continued
`
`pursuit
`
`of
`
`his counterclaims
`
`in the D.C. Action
`
`violated
`
`the automatic
`
`stay
`
`imposed
`
`by section
`
`362 of
`
`the
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Code,
`
`1 1 U.S.C.
`
`§ 362.
`
`S_ee Memorandum
`
`Decision
`
`re Ray Connolly's
`
`Motion
`
`for
`
`Order
`
`of Civil
`
`Contempt
`
`and for Sanctions
`
`for Violating
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Stay,
`
`filed
`
`as docket
`
`entry
`
`no. 164 in In re W.A.R.
`
`LLP,
`
`Chap.
`
`11 Case No.
`
`11-00044
`
`(Bankr.
`
`D.D.C.
`
`June
`
`15, 2011).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404(a)
`
`provides
`
`that,
`
`"[fjor
`
`the convenience
`
`of
`
`the parties
`
`and
`
`
`
`V.ROIII!R1'St)N('Alt'f)NIIDlllt.)YI'D
`
`Vhltdi()hIt) Sk
`
`

`

`: 29
`11/15/2017
`KINGS
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`FILED:
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`02
`PM|
`-cv-
`Document
`Filed
`56
`10/28/11
`-LT
`1:10-CV-08442-LTS
`ase
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`INDEX
`
`5183/2/201/
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`Pag@fifdril.%YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`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."
`
`A district
`
`court
`
`has broad
`
`discretion
`
`to
`
`transfer
`
`venue.
`
`In re Cuyahoea
`
`Equipment
`
`Corp.,
`
`980 F.2d
`
`110,
`
`117 (2d Cir.
`
`1992).
`
`In deciding
`
`a motion
`
`to transfer,
`
`the Court
`
`conducts
`
`a two-pronged
`
`analysis:
`
`whether
`
`the action
`
`could
`
`have
`
`been brought
`
`in the transferee
`
`district
`
`and,
`
`if yes, whether
`
`transfer
`
`would
`
`be an appropriate
`
`exercise
`
`of
`
`the Court's
`
`discretion.
`
`Mattel,
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Robarb's,
`
`Inc.,
`
`139 F. Supp.
`
`2d 487,
`
`490
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`2001).
`
`This Action
`
`Could
`
`Have
`
`Been Brought
`
`in the Transferee
`
`District
`
`A court may
`
`only
`
`transfer
`
`an action
`
`pursuant
`
`to § 1404(a)
`
`if
`
`the transferee
`
`district
`
`has personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`the defendants
`
`and the transferee
`
`district
`
`is an appropriate
`
`venue.
`
`The District
`
`of Columbia
`
`meets
`
`both
`
`of
`
`these
`
`criteria.
`
`Defendants
`
`Appear
`
`to be Subject
`
`to Personal
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`in the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`Plaintiff
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`this Court
`
`has personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over Cartinhour
`
`and the
`
`Attorney
`
`Defendants
`
`pursuant
`
`to 18 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1965(a)
`
`and (b).
`
`18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1965(a)
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`"any
`
`civil
`
`action
`
`or proceeding
`
`under
`
`[RICO]
`
`against
`
`any person may be instituted
`
`in the
`
`district
`
`court
`
`of
`
`the United
`
`States
`
`for any district
`
`in which
`
`such person
`
`resides,
`
`is found,
`
`has an
`
`agent,
`
`or
`
`transacts
`
`his
`
`affairs."
`
`18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1965(b)
`
`further
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`if
`
`"the
`
`ends
`
`of
`
`justice
`
`before
`
`the
`
`court,"
`
`require
`
`that other
`
`parties
`
`residing
`
`in any other
`
`district
`
`be brought
`
`the court may
`
`exercise
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`those
`
`parties
`
`as well.
`
`Therefore,
`
`"a civil
`
`RICO
`
`action
`
`can . . .
`
`be brought
`
`in a district
`
`court where
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`based
`
`on minimum
`
`contacts
`
`is
`
`established
`
`as to at
`
`least
`
`one
`
`defendant."
`
`PT United
`
`Can Co.
`
`v. Crown
`
`Corp & Seal Co.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`138 F.3d
`
`65, 71 (2d Cir.
`
`1998).
`
`Plaintiff"
`Plaintiff's
`
`assertion
`
`of
`
`the propriety
`
`of
`
`this Court's
`
`exercise
`
`of personal
`
`1<I>i<fritra<)x t. (' (I<TII'IIIII.It
`
`tv
`i'll
`
`t Ii<el<inII<ds 11
`
`

`

`11/15/2017
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: KINGS
`FILED
`02
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`:29
`PM)
`-cv-
`Document
`10/28/11
`56
`5<Çase
`1:10-cv-08442-LT$
`Mled
`-LT
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`/ZU1/
`5183/Z
`INDEX
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`Pggfigdd.%YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`!!
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`all defendants
`
`named
`
`in this
`
`action
`
`is premised
`
`on his allegations
`
`that
`
`Defendants
`
`Kustudic,
`
`Milicevic
`
`and Popovic
`
`reside,
`
`and/or may be found,
`
`in New York.2
`
`The
`
`active
`
`litigation
`
`of
`
`the D.C.
`
`Action
`
`in the D.C. Court
`
`against
`
`Cartinhour,
`
`with
`
`no issue
`
`raised
`
`by
`
`Cartinhour
`
`as to the propriety
`
`of
`
`that
`
`court's
`
`exercise
`
`of
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`him,
`
`indicates,
`
`particularly
`
`in light
`
`of Defendants'
`
`alternative
`
`request
`
`for
`
`transfer
`
`of
`
`the litigation
`
`to the D.C.
`
`Court,
`
`that
`
`the D.C. Court
`
`has personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over Cartinhour
`
`at a minimum.
`
`On the basis
`
`of
`
`that
`
`court's
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over Cartinhour,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`is at
`
`least as well
`
`poised
`
`to invoke
`
`18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1965(b)
`
`as the basis
`
`for
`
`the exercise
`
`of
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`the other Defendants
`
`as he is to do so
`
`in this Court
`
`based
`
`on the alleged
`
`presence
`
`or
`
`residence
`
`of Kustidic.
`
`Milicevic
`
`and Popovie.
`
`The District
`
`of Columbia
`
`is an Appropriate
`
`Venue
`
`for
`
`this Action
`
`Under
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391(b)(2),
`
`venue
`
`is proper
`
`in 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."
`situated."
`
`Plaintiff
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the Southern
`
`District
`
`ofNew
`
`York
`
`is the appropriate
`
`venue
`
`for
`
`this action
`
`because
`
`the "L_iu
`
`Action,"
`
`the securities
`
`class
`
`action
`
`brought
`
`in this district,
`
`was
`
`"the
`
`genesis,
`
`epicenter,
`
`and foundation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`relationship
`
`flow."
`
`claims
`
`and business
`
`between
`
`Defendant
`
`Cartinhour
`
`and Robertson
`
`from which
`
`Robertson's
`
`(Plaintiff's
`
`Response
`
`in Opposition
`
`to
`
`Defendants'
`
`Motions
`
`to Dismiss
`
`2, Mar.
`
`7,
`
`2011,
`
`ECF No. 34.) Without
`
`addressing
`
`the merits
`
`of
`
`that argument,
`
`the Court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the
`
`District
`
`of Columbia
`
`is also an appropriate
`
`venue
`
`for
`
`this
`
`action.
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`claims
`
`stem from
`
`2
`
`resides
`and/or
`be found
`Kustudic
`states
`Plaintiff
`that Vesna
`In his complaint,
`"may
`..
`a citizen
`of Serbia who
`that Tanja Milicevic
`"is
`New York";
`New York
`County,
`and/or
`her affairs
`and also transacts
`New York,
`in New York
`may be found
`County,
`"is a
`Popovic
`in New York
`and that Aleksandar
`has an agent
`New York";
`County,
`and also
`New York,
`. . may be found
`in New York
`citizen
`of Serbia who
`.
`County,
`New York."
`(Compl.
`in New York
`his affairs
`and/or
`has an agent
`transacts
`County,
`14-16.)
`
`in
`.
`
`¶¶
`
`DAI<'1'IN1<OUIKXVI'I)
`ROBI-IUISOM'C.
`
`vl/(SIIJI IO"-'81I
`
`(i
`
`

`

`11/15/2017
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`FILED
`CLERK
`: 29
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`:
`02
`PM
`-cv-
`50aSe
`Document
`-LT
`1:10-cv-08442-LTS
`56
`Filed
`10/28/11
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`INDEX
`
`518372/2017
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`YSCEF:
`]
`11/15/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`Pag@Elf
`
`i
`
`the partnership
`
`between
`
`himself
`
`and Cartinhour,
`
`which
`
`was allegedly
`
`formed
`
`in the District
`
`of
`
`Columbia,
`
`and the subsequent
`
`litigation
`
`surrounding
`
`that partnership,
`
`which
`
`took
`
`place
`
`in the
`
`D.C. Court.
`
`These
`
`circumstances
`
`are sufficient
`
`to demonstrate
`
`that a substantial
`
`part
`
`of
`
`the
`
`events
`
`or omissions
`
`giving
`
`rise to this
`
`action
`
`occurred
`
`in the District
`
`of Columbia.
`
`Transfer
`
`to the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`is an Appropriate
`
`Exercise
`
`of
`
`this Court's
`
`Discretion
`
`When
`
`whether
`
`transfer
`
`is an appropriate
`
`exercise
`
`of discretion,
`
`courts
`
`determining
`
`consider
`
`several
`
`factors,
`
`including:
`
`(1)
`
`the convenience
`
`of witnesses;
`
`(2)
`
`the convenience
`
`of
`
`the
`
`parties;
`
`(3)
`
`the location
`
`of
`
`relevant
`
`documents
`
`and the relative
`
`ease of access
`
`to sources
`
`of proof;
`
`(4)
`
`the locus
`
`of operative
`
`facts;
`
`(5)
`
`the availability
`
`of process
`
`to compel
`
`the attendance
`
`ol'
`of
`
`unwilling
`
`witnesses;
`
`(6)
`
`the relative
`
`means
`
`of
`
`the parties;
`
`(7)
`
`the forum's
`
`familiarity
`
`with
`
`the
`
`law;
`
`(8)
`
`the weight
`
`accorded
`
`the plaintiff's
`
`choice
`
`of
`
`forum;
`
`and (9)
`
`trial
`
`efficiency
`
`governing
`
`and the interests
`
`ofjustice,
`
`based
`
`on the totality
`
`of
`
`the circumstances.
`
`Reliance
`
`Insurance
`
`Co.
`
`v.
`
`Six Star,
`
`Inc.,
`
`155 F. Supp.
`
`2d 49, 56-57
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`2001);
`
`In re Nematron
`
`Corp.
`
`Secs.
`
`Litig.,
`
`., 30
`
`F. Supp.
`
`2d 397,
`
`400 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`1998).
`
`Even
`
`a brief
`
`review
`
`of
`
`these
`
`factors
`
`leans
`
`in favor
`
`of
`
`transfer
`
`to the District
`
`of Columbia.
`
`With
`
`the exception
`
`of
`
`the three Serbian
`
`defendants,
`
`Popovic,
`
`Kustudic,
`
`and
`
`Milicevic,
`
`all other
`
`defendants
`
`and witnesses
`
`are in the D.C. metropolitan
`
`area.
`
`All
`
`relevant
`
`used in the
`
`documents
`
`are in the District
`
`of Columbia,
`
`and such documents
`
`that were
`
`actually
`
`trial
`
`of
`
`the D.C. Action
`
`are part of
`
`the record
`
`in that Court.
`
`The
`
`operative
`
`events
`
`relevant
`
`to
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`claims
`
`- the formation
`
`of
`
`the partnership
`
`between
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and Defendant
`
`Cartinhour,
`
`and the subsequent
`
`litigation
`
`brought
`
`on Cartinhour's
`
`behalf
`
`by the Attorney
`
`Defendants
`
`- took
`
`place
`
`in the District
`
`of Columbia,
`
`which
`
`is thus
`
`the locus
`
`of operative
`
`facts.
`
`Most
`
`importantly,
`
`trial
`
`efficiency
`
`and the interests
`
`of
`
`justice
`
`are best
`
`served
`
`by
`
`It'I'SIIN5CrttiI'INII()I'Ittt'I'IS
`ROBI
`
`VI:Itattta11120I I
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`CLERK
`FILED:
`11/15/2017
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`29
`02:
`P1
`50aSe
`1:10-CV-08442-LTS
`10/28/11
`Filed
`56
`Document
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`518372/2017
`NO.
`INDEX
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`EÛÝ D
`11/15/2017
`YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`Pag
`
`having
`
`the D.C. Court
`
`decide
`
`Plaintiff
`
`s current
`
`claims.
`
`Both
`
`this action
`
`and
`
`the D.C. Action
`
`arise
`
`from the same
`
`underlying
`
`issue
`
`- Cartinhour's
`
`alleged
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`the Indemnification
`
`Agreement
`
`by threatening
`
`to sue Robertson
`
`and pursuing
`
`claims
`
`in the subsequent
`
`litigation
`
`meaning
`
`that
`
`the D.C. Court
`
`is uniquely
`
`familiar
`
`with
`
`the facts
`
`and legal
`
`theories
`
`asserted
`
`-
`
`by
`
`both Plaintiff
`
`and Defendants.
`
`Additionally,
`
`in the time
`
`since Defendants
`
`initially
`
`filed
`
`their
`
`motions
`
`to dismiss
`
`a verdict
`
`was entered
`
`for
`
`in this Court,
`
`a jury
`
`reached
`
`Defendant
`
`Cartinhour
`
`in the related
`
`D.C.
`
`Action.
`
`Because
`
`and judgment
`
`Defendants'
`
`motions
`
`to dismiss
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`Complaint
`
`were
`
`substantially
`
`briefed
`
`prior
`
`to that verdict,
`
`Defendants
`
`raised
`
`the issue
`
`of
`
`res judicata
`
`before
`
`this Court
`
`only
`
`in their Reply Memoranda,
`
`to which
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has,
`
`to date,
`
`not
`
`responded.
`
`The D.C. Court,
`
`having
`
`entered
`
`the judgment
`
`in the underlying
`
`D.C.
`
`Action
`
`and
`
`presided
`
`over
`
`that
`
`trial
`
`is in the best position
`
`to review
`
`any
`
`further
`
`and
`
`jury
`
`briefing
`
`make
`
`res judicata
`
`determinations.
`
`Finally,
`
`while
`
`courts
`
`generally
`
`defer
`
`to a plaintiff's
`
`choice
`
`of
`
`forum,
`
`a plaintiff's
`
`choice
`
`of
`
`forum will
`
`be given
`
`less deference
`
`"where
`
`the connection
`
`between
`
`the case and the
`
`chosen
`
`forum
`
`is
`
`minimal,"
`minimal,"
`
`or where
`
`plaintiff's
`
`choice
`
`of
`
`forum is motivated
`
`primarily
`
`by tactical
`
`considerations.
`
`See, e.g., Chiste
`
`v. Hotels.com
`
`LP.,
`
`756 F. Supp.
`
`2d 382,
`
`401
`
`($.D.N.Y.
`
`2010);
`
`Terra Securities
`
`ASA Konkursbo
`
`v. Citigroup,
`
`688 F. Supp.
`
`2d 303,
`
`315 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`2010).
`
`Here,
`
`been
`
`Robertson's
`
`decision
`
`to file
`
`suit
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York
`
`appears
`
`to have
`
`principally
`
`a tactical
`
`maneuver
`
`to avoid
`
`the jurisdiction
`
`of
`
`the D.C. Court,
`
`and so should
`
`be
`
`accorded
`
`little
`
`deference.
`
`For
`
`the above
`
`stated
`
`reasons,
`
`the
`
`Defendants'
`
`motion
`
`to transfer
`
`this
`
`action
`
`to the
`
`United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`is granted.
`
`The
`
`Defendants'
`
`motions
`
`to
`
`dismiss
`
`the Complaint
`
`are terminated
`
`without
`
`prejudice
`
`to renewal
`
`in that Court.
`
`
`
`Iui'I>RVIIL'R1SONV.CRIII'INIIIIIIR
`
`VL'RSII)Nl022S/II
`
`

`

`CLERK
`. COUNTY
`FILED:
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`: 29
`11/15/2017
`KINGS
`02
`Pli
`-cv-
`56
`5faSe
`1:10-cv-08442-LTS
`Document
`Filed
`10/28/11
`-L
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`INDEX
`
`518372/2017
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`Paggg@fgtl-
`11/15/2017
`YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Motion
`
`for a Stay,
`
`and for Alternative
`
`S_ervice
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Robertson's
`
`motion
`
`for a stay
`
`is denied.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`asserts
`
`that a stay
`
`is
`
`warranted
`
`in this proceeding
`
`because
`
`he has moved
`
`in the bankruptcy
`
`court
`
`for a determination
`
`that
`
`the judgment
`
`of
`
`the U.S. District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`("D.C.
`
`Judgment"
`Judgment")
`
`is
`
`void
`
`ab initio,
`
`as obtained
`
`in violation
`
`of an automatic
`
`bankruptcy
`
`stay.
`
`Similarly,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`also
`
`asserts
`
`that
`
`an appeal
`
`of
`
`the D.C.
`
`Judgment
`
`before
`
`the U.S. Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`for
`
`the
`
`is pending
`
`District
`
`of Columbia,
`
`such
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`be a waste
`
`ofjudicial
`
`resources
`
`for
`
`this
`
`court
`
`to proceed
`
`in the present
`
`action
`
`until
`
`the appeal
`
`is resolved.
`
`Neither
`
`argument
`
`is availing.
`
`First,
`
`on June
`
`15,
`
`2011, Bankruptcy
`
`Judge
`
`Teel
`
`decisively
`
`rejected
`
`as
`
`"frivolous"
`
`the argument
`
`that
`
`the D.C.
`
`Judgment
`
`was
`
`void
`
`al
`
`initio,
`
`noting
`
`that
`
`"the
`
`automatic
`
`stay did not bar
`
`the actions
`
`[Defendants]
`
`took
`
`after
`
`the commencement
`
`of
`
`this bankruptcy
`
`case, and,
`
`in any event, Cartinhour
`
`obtained
`
`claims."
`
`relief
`
`from the automatic
`
`stay
`
`to pursue
`
`his
`
`Memorandum
`
`Decision
`
`re Ray Connolly's
`
`Motion
`
`for Order
`
`of Civil
`
`Contempt
`
`and for Sanctions
`
`for Violating
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Stay,
`
`filed
`
`as
`
`docket
`
`entry
`
`no.
`
`164 in In re W.A.R.
`
`LLP, Chap.
`
`11 Case No.
`
`I 1-00044
`
`(Bankr.
`
`D. D.C.
`
`June
`
`15, 201 1). A pending
`
`appeal
`
`is not automatic
`
`grounds
`
`for a stay
`
`of a related
`
`action.
`
`The
`
`factors
`
`that courts
`
`consider
`
`in determining
`
`whether
`
`to stay
`
`their
`
`own
`
`orders
`
`pending
`
`appeal
`
`are
`
`instructive
`
`in this
`
`connection.
`
`Those
`
`factors
`
`are:
`
`a
`
`"(1) whether
`
`the stay
`
`applicant
`
`has made
`
`strong
`
`showing
`
`that he is likely
`
`to succeed
`
`on the merits;
`
`(2) whether
`
`the applicant
`
`will
`
`be
`
`irreparably
`
`injured
`
`absent
`
`a stay;
`
`(3) whether
`
`issuance
`
`of
`
`the stay will
`
`substantially
`
`injure
`
`the
`
`other
`
`parties
`
`interested
`
`in the proceeding;
`
`and (4) where
`
`the public
`
`interest
`
`lies."
`
`In re World
`
`Trade Center
`
`Disaster
`
`Site
`
`Litigation,
`
`503 F.3d
`
`167, 170 (2d Cir.
`
`2007)
`
`(internal
`
`quotations
`
`omitted).
`
`None
`
`of
`
`these
`
`factors
`
`favors
`
`a stay
`
`of
`
`the instant motion.
`
`lrOlll'.IiTSOiiV.('.Wl<'I'1N110lik'ii'I'I)
`
`I l(lll1.'
`X
`
`I<)~4I I
`
`I
`
`

`

`: 29
`11/15/2017
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: KINGS
`FILED
`P
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`02
`5 aSel:10-CV-08442-LTS
`DoCument
`Filed
`10/28/11
`56
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`501
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`gb11ŸfSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`Pagtal
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For
`
`the foregoing
`
`reasons„Defendants'Defendants'
`
`
`reasons,
`
`motions
`
`to dismiss
`
`the Complaint
`
`or,
`
`in the
`
`alternative,
`
`to transfer
`
`the action
`
`to the United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia,
`
`are granted
`
`insofar
`
`as they
`
`seek transfer,
`
`and are terminated
`
`without
`
`prejudice
`
`in all other
`
`respects.
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`motion
`
`for a stay is denied,
`
`and his request
`
`for approval
`
`of alternative
`
`service
`
`on
`
`Defendant
`
`Milicevic
`
`is denied
`
`without
`
`prejudice.
`
`This Memorandum
`
`Order
`
`resolves
`
`docket
`
`entry
`
`nos. 20, 24, and 38.
`
`The Clerk
`
`of
`
`Court
`
`is respectfully
`
`requested
`
`promptly
`
`to effectuate
`
`the transfer
`
`of
`
`this
`
`case and to close
`
`the
`
`matter
`
`in this Court.
`
`New York
`Dated: New York,
`28, 2011
`October
`
`LA
`United
`
`FAYLOR
`States District
`
`SWAIN
`Judge
`
`Ico!!r!!Tsosv.c,v«oNitro!,;r«wvo
`
`Vt."RSIO'8loi2!!i! I
`
`