Moore v. Cohen
Not reported in F.Supp. (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A district court is divested of jurisdiction over a case once the case file has been physically transferred to a permissible transferee court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Any motions filed in the transferor court after the physical transfer occurs are untimely and cannot be adjudicated.
Facts:
- A lawsuit was initiated by Roy Stewart Moore against Sasha Noam Baron Cohen.
- During a court hearing on a motion, counsel for Moore introduced him to the court as the 'Chief Justice.'
- The presiding judge clarified for the record that Moore was a 'Former Chief Judge' and was now a 'civilian,' a fact Moore's counsel confirmed as correct.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the judge demonstrated bias by reading from what they described as a 'pre-prepared and pre-judged ruling' at the conclusion of the hearing.
Procedural Posture:
- Roy Stewart Moore, et al. (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Sasha Noam Baron Cohen, et al. (Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- On April 29, 2019, after a hearing, the district court granted the defendants' motion to transfer.
- On May 13, 2019, the clerk of the court physically transferred the case file to the Southern District of New York.
- On May 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the transfer order and for recusal of the judge.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court retain jurisdiction to rule on a motion for reconsideration after it has physically transferred the case file to another judicial district?
Opinions:
Majority - Hogan, Thomas F.
No. A district court does not retain jurisdiction to rule on a motion for reconsideration after it has physically transferred the case file to another judicial district. The court's jurisdiction ends at the moment of 'physical transfer.' Based on the controlling precedent of Starnes v. McGuire, a transferor court loses all authority over a case once the file is sent to the transferee court. Here, the court physically transferred the case file on May 13, 2019. The plaintiffs filed their motion for reconsideration on May 14, 2019, one day after jurisdiction was lost. The D.C. Circuit's precedent in Starnes explicitly provides for a delay between the entry of a transfer order and the physical transfer of the file precisely to allow parties time to seek review. The plaintiffs failed to act within this window, and their own delay caused their motion to be filed too late for the court to exercise jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This opinion serves as a strong reaffirmation of the bright-line jurisdictional rule governing case transfers. It underscores that the act of 'physical transfer' is a point of no return, completely divesting the transferor court of its authority. The decision provides a critical lesson for practitioners on the finality of transfer orders and the importance of acting swiftly to challenge such an order before the case file is physically transmitted. It reinforces the procedural requirement that any appeal or motion for reconsideration must be filed in the narrow window between the issuance of the transfer order and the clerk's transmission of the record to the new court.
