Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


November 17, 2005.

DEREK OUBRE, Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant,
CLINICAL SUPPLIES MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant — Counterclaim Plaintiff.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LOUIS STANTON, District Judge


Derek Oubre, a New York resident,*fn1 filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court, New York County, against his former employer, Clinical Supplies Management, Inc. ("CSM"), a North Dakota corporation with its principal place of business in Fargo, North Dakota. CSM removed the case to this court and asserted several counterclaims. CSM now moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for a change of venue to the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.

I. Background

  CSM assists pharmaceutical companies with clinical drug trials. Oubre alleges that he and CSM signed a written employment contract in November 2001, whereby CSM agreed to employ him as a financial consultant for thirty-six months at $50.00 per hour plus an annual stipend for board service and reimbursement of business expenses. CSM also allegedly granted him options to acquire 11,112 shares of CSM stock. Oubre claims CSM breached the 2001 employment agreement by firing him in March 2004 and by failing to pay him his salary and grant him the stock options.

  CSM alleges that Oubre forged the signature of Gerald Finken, CSM's chief executive officer, on the employment and stock option contracts. According to CSM, Oubre worked for CSM from November 2001 to September 2003 pursuant to an unwritten agreement, which did not entitle him to stock options.

  In November 2003, while still employed by CSM but allegedly without its knowledge, Oubre became a director and chief financial officer of LaGray Chemical Corp., an Illinois pharmaceutical company based in Chicago and Ghana.

  Oubre and CSM acknowledge they made an employment agreement in December 2003, whereby Oubre became CSM's full-time chief financial officer and interim chief operating officer as of September 1, 2003, and CSM granted him ten percent of CSM stock. In turn, Oubre was to generate a business plan for CSM's packaging and labeling operation, and prepare CSM's financial statements, among other things. Oubre and CSM each claim that the other breached the 2003 employment agreement.

  Oubre also signed non-competition and confidentiality agreements in September 2003. CSM claims he breached these agreements and diverted corporate opportunities from CSM, in violation of his fiduciary duty of loyalty, while he was employed by LaGray. Oubre contends that CSM officers were aware of his relationship with LaGray, and that LaGray does not compete with CSM.

  II. Motion to Transfer

  Section 1404 (a) of title 28 of the United States Code provides that, "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." The action could have been brought in the District of North Dakota because venue would be proper and CSM would be subject to process there.

  In determining whether venue should be transferred to the District of North Dakota for the convenience of parties and witnesses, the relevant factors include:
(1) the convenience of witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of the operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) a forum's familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded a plaintiff's choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances.
Lewis v. CRI, Inc., No. 03 Civ. 651 (MBM), 2003 WL 1900859, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2003). The court has broad discretion to balance these factors and to consider the evidence of convenience and fairness on a case-by-case basis. In re Cuyahoga Equip. Corp., 980 F.2d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 1992), citing Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29, 108 S. Ct. 2239, 2243, 101 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1988).

  "Absent a clear cut and convincing showing by defendant that the balance of convenience weighs strongly in favor of the transferee court, plaintiff's choice of forum will not be set aside." Gen. State Auth. (of Pa.) for Benefit of Crompton-Richmond Co., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 314 F. Supp. 422, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 1970); see also Ford Motor Co. v. Ryan, 182 F.2d 329, 330 (2d Cir. 1950) (defendant must make a strong case for transfer). III. Discussion

  A. Convenience of Witnesses

  The convenience of witnesses is a major factor in evaluating a transfer motion. 800-Flowers, Inc. v. Intercontinental Florist, Inc., 860 F. Supp. 128, 134 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). "When weighing the convenience of the witnesses, courts must consider the materiality, nature, and quality of each witness, not merely the number of witnesses in each district." Royal & Sunalliance v. British Airways, 167 F. Supp. 2d 573, 577 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). To enable the court to make that evaluation, a movant relying on the convenience of witnesses "must clearly specify the key witnesses to be called and must make a general statement of what their testimony will cover." Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc., 579 F.2d 215, 218 (2d Cir. 1978).

  (1) LaGray Witnesses

  Oubre and CSM both recognize the importance of testimony from LaGray employees Paul Lartey and Alexandra Graham. However, because they are both based in Ghana (Lartey Aff. ¶ 8; Graham Aff. ¶ 8) and will have to travel a long distance to either proposed venue, they are not considered in the venue transfer analysis. Varsity Spirit v. I.I.P. Inc., No. 03 Civ. 2069 (LLS), 2003 WL 22772638, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2003) ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.