## Facts

- Wade Robertson, a Tennessee attorney, and William C. Cartinhour, Jr., a retired physician and investor in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, formed W.A.R. LLP in the District of Columbia in 2004 to pursue securities-related litigation and consulting work.
- Cartinhour allegedly contributed about $3.5 million to the partnership, and Robertson claimed to have contributed legal services valued at about $3.83 million.
- The relationship deteriorated, and Robertson first sued Cartinhour in federal court in the District of Columbia; after trial, a jury returned a substantial verdict for Cartinhour based on fiduciary-duty breaches and legal malpractice.
- While the D.C. case was still pending, Robertson filed a second lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Cartinhour, multiple attorneys involved in the D.C. litigation, and several individuals based in Serbia.
- The New York complaint asserted civil RICO claims and state-law claims for fraud, defamation, and tortious interference, characterizing the prior partnership dispute and related litigation conduct as a conspiracy.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, transfer to the District of Columbia, or stay the New York action; Robertson separately sought a stay and permission for alternative service on one defendant.

## Issues

1. Whether the action should be transferred to the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for convenience and in the interest of justice.
2. Whether the court should stay the action or grant alternative-service relief rather than transfer.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion to the extent it transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The court denied Robertson’s motion for a stay and for authorization of alternative service.
- The court did not adjudicate the merits of the RICO and tort claims, treating the matter as primarily one of forum and case management.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any district where it might have been brought when transfer serves the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice.
- Transfer analysis commonly considers: plaintiff’s forum choice, convenience of parties and witnesses, locus of operative facts, access to proof, availability of compulsory process, and trial efficiency.
- A plaintiff’s forum choice receives reduced weight when the chosen forum has limited factual connection to the dispute or appears selected for tactical reasons.
- Strong overlap with related litigation in another district, especially where that court has already tried closely related matters, supports transfer to avoid duplication and inconsistent rulings and to conserve judicial resources.

## Conclusion

The court transferred the action to the District of Columbia because the partnership and alleged misconduct were centered there, most parties and witnesses were located there, and the related D.C. proceedings made transfer more efficient and just; it therefore declined to issue ancillary stay or service orders in New York.


Robertson v. Cartinhour, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126030 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2011)