The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
MARGARET M. O’REILLY,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 2:24-cv-292-SPC-KCD
MEDICAL FACILITIES OF
AMERICA and RIVERSIDE
HEALTH AND REHABILITATION
CENTER,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (Doc. 15)
and Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 18). For the below reasons, the Court grants the
motion and transfers this case.
Plaintiff Margaret M. O’Reilly worked as a Medical Records Coordinator
at Riverside Health and Rehabilitation Center in Danville, Virginia. During
her time there, her employer required employees to receive a Covid-19
vaccination. But Plaintiff requested an accommodation. She provided
documentation from a doctor stating that she is disabled and that the vaccine
could cause serious complications. Despite this, her employer denied her
request, placed her on unpaid medical leave, and listed her position online.
Plaintiff now sues and alleges Defendants violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act by terminating her employment and failing to provide her a
reasonable accommodation and made false claims to the Virginia
Unemployment Commission. Defendants move to dismiss or transfer for
improper venue (Doc. 15).
When challenged by a motion to dismiss for improper venue under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), the plaintiff has the burden of
showing that venue is proper in its chosen forum. Brown v. Brown, No. 8:06-
CV-1028T24GW, 2007 WL 949424, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2007). Generally,
venue is proper in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district
is located;
(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) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise
be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district
in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
A court considering a motion to dismiss for improper venue must accept
the plaintiff's allegations as true and evaluate all plausible inferences derived
from those facts in favor of the plaintiff. Dyck-O’Neal, Inc. v. England, No.
2:15-CV-27-FTM-38DNF, 2015 WL 1911268, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 27, 2015).
That said, when evaluating such a motion, “the court may consider matters
outside the pleadings such as affidavit testimony.” Wai v. Rainbow Holdings,
315 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1268 (S.D. Fla. 2004). Therefore, “to resolve such a
motion, the Court accepts all allegations of the complaint as true, unless
contradicted by the defendant’s evidence, and draws all reasonable inferences
and resolves all factual conflicts in favor of the plaintiff.” Dyck-O’Neal, Inc.,
2015 WL 1911268, at *2.
Defendants argue that the Court must dismiss or transfer this action
because Defendants reside in Virginia, not Florida, and the challenged conduct
occurred in Danville, Virginia. Plaintiff responds that she filed suit in the
Middle District of Florida because she currently lives in Cape Coral, Florida.
And, while she prefers the case stay here, she is “unopposed to a change of
venue to Virginia” rather than dismissal. The Court agrees with Defendants
that transfer is appropriate.
Neither Defendant resides in the Middle District of Florida nor has any
connection to this district. And none of the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s suit
occurred here. In contrast, both Defendants reside in Virginia. And all of the
employment events forming the basis of Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Danville,
Virginia, within the Western District of Virginia. The only connection to the
Middle District of Florida is Plaintiff’s current residence. This is insufficient.
See Floyd v. Endurance Am. Specialty Ins. Co., Inc., No. 1:23CV12-MW/HTC,
2023 WL 10406714, at *2 (N.D. Fla. May 15, 2023) (finding venue improper
where “Plaintiffs residence is the only connection between this case and the .
.. Division”). Accordingly, the Court finds that the interests of justice support
transfer of this case to the Western District of Virginia, where all relevant
events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (“The
district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong
division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer
such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”).
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Defendants Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (Doc. 15) is GRANTED in
part.
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this matter to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Virginia and close this
Middle District of Florida case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 7, 2024.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record