The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KANYE CLARY, : CIVIL ACTION
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE :
UNIVERSITY, et al., : No. 24-cv-6793
:
Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM
KENNEY, J. March 11, 2025
The Court writes for the benefit of the parties and assumes familiarity with the facts of the
case. Defendants The Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”) and Michael Rhoades move
to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF No. 8 at 1. Defendant Blueprint Sports and Entertainment, LLC
joins in the Motion. ECF No. 17 at 1. For the reasons set forth below, this Court will grant the
Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 8).
I. DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “a district court may transfer [a] civil action to any other district
or division where it might have been brought” or “to which all parties have consented” for “the
convenience of parties and witnesses” or “in the interest of justice.” In deciding a motion to
transfer under § 1404(a), unless all parties have consented to another venue, a court must first
determine whether venue would be proper in the district to which the case would be transferred.
See Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W.D. Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 59 (2013). The court
must then weigh the private interests of the parties and the interests of the public to decide if
transfer is warranted. See id. at 62–63.
Turning to the first requirement, venue is proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
and Plaintiff does not argue otherwise. See ECF No. 11 at 2–3. Because “a substantial part of the
events” giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred at Penn State’s main campus in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, venue lies in that district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (venue is proper
in a district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred”). The Court next turns to balancing the parties’ and public’s interests to determine
whether transfer to the Middle District of Pennsylvania is warranted. See Atl. Marine Constr. Co.,
571 U.S. at 62–63.
The parties’ private interests weigh strongly in favor of transfer. In considering the parties’
private interests, a court may look to the location where the claims arose, convenience to the
witnesses and litigants, the location of relevant records, the plaintiff’s original choice of forum,
the defendant’s preferred forum, and any other factors that would streamline trying the case. In re
Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d 390, 402 (3d Cir. 2017). In this case, Plaintiff’s claims
arose from events that were overwhelmingly concentrated on Penn State’s campus in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rhoades made false statements
concerning Plaintiff’s academic record and conduct on the basketball team while Plaintiff was a
student at Penn State, and that Defendants were unjustly enriched from promotional materials
related to Plaintiff’s basketball career at Penn State. See ECF No. 1-1 at 12, 18–19. Though some
of the supposedly defamatory statements were allegedly made elsewhere than Penn State, see ECF
No. 11 at 2–3, the facts underlying Plaintiff’s claims are substantially tied to Penn State and have
no apparent connection to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, many potential
witnesses—Penn State basketball coaches, staff, professors, and basketball team members—would
likely be located near Penn State, and any academic and administrative records are also likely
housed at Penn State’s main campus. See, e.g., ECF No. 8-4 at 2–3; ECF No. 8-3 at 3. And though
Plaintiff argues that Penn State has other campuses in Pennsylvania, ECF No. 11 at 3, Plaintiff
was at all relevant times a student at Penn State’s main campus in the Middle District. See ECF
No. 8-4 at 3; cf. Arena Information, Bryce Jordan Ctr., https://bjc.psu.edu/arena-information
[https://perma.cc/4XZ5-JK2D] (noting that Penn State’s basketball team plays at the main
campus).
The Middle District of Pennsylvania is also the preferred forum of Defendants and is more
convenient for a number of Defendants. For example, Defendant Rhoades works and resides in
the Middle District in Centre County. See ECF No. 8-2 at 2. Likewise, both Defendant Success
with Honor, Inc.’s general counsel and its former CEO reside in the Middle District.1 See ECF
No. 8 at 9; ECF No. 8-3 at 3. Though Plaintiff’s choice of forum is the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Plaintiff is a citizen of Virginia, and his choice of forum is therefore afforded less
deference because it “is not [his] home forum.” See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping
Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007); see also In re 3M Co., No. 20-2864, 2020 WL 13924735, at *2
(3d Cir. Nov. 18, 2020) (per curiam). In total, the parties’ private interests weigh strongly in favor
of transfer.
The public’s interests do not weigh strongly for or against transfer. To evaluate the public’s
interests, a court may consider factors such as the relative congestion of the transferor and
transferee districts, the familiarity of the districts with the applicable state law in a diversity case,
1 The former CEO of Defendant Success with Honor NIL, Inc., Mark Toniatti, submitted an
affidavit in support of The Pennsylvania State University and Michael Rhoades’s Motion to
Transfer. See ECF No. 8-3 at 2.
“the public policies of the fora,” the enforceability of the judgment, and “the local interest in
deciding local controversies at home.” In re Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d at 402 (citation
omitted). Most of these factors are neutral: Both districts are familiar with Pennsylvania law, to
the extent it applies to Plaintiff’s state-law claims; the parties do not point to any public policies
of either district implicated here; nor do the parties raise any issues with enforcing a judgment.
See id. Indeed, the only factor that weighs against transfer is the relative congestion of the districts
because the Middle District of Pennsylvania is more congested than the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. See Admin. Office of the U.S. Cts., U.S. District Courts–Combined Civil and
Criminal Federal Court Management Statistics, at 3 (Dec. 31, 2024), https://www.uscourts.gov
/sites/default/files/2025-02/fcms_na_distcomparison1231.2024.pdf [https://perma.cc/22WV-VB
W9] (number of weighted filings per judgeship is higher in the Middle District (451) than in the
Eastern District (330)). On the other hand, “the local interest in deciding local controversies at
home” favors transfer. See In re Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d at 402. Because Plaintiff’s
suit relates to events that arose in large part at Penn State’s main campus, see ECF No. 1-1 at 12,
18–19, the parties’ controversy is far more “local” to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Given
that most of the public interest factors are neutral, one factor weighs against transfer, and one factor
weighs in favor of transfer, the public’s interests in this case do not strongly favor or disfavor
transfer.
Because the parties’ interests strongly favor transfer, and the public’s interests do not weigh
strongly for or against transfer, the balance of the parties’ and public’s interests supports
transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
II. CONCLUSION
Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
and the balance of the parties’ and public’s interests supports transferring the case to that district.
Accordingly, this Court will GRANT Defendants The Pennsylvania State University and Michael
Rhoades’s Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 8). An appropriate order will follow.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Chad F. Kenney
_________________________
CHAD F. KENNEY, JUDGE