Source: http://sc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190611_0001485.DSC.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-02-28 08:35:37
Document Index: 537067371

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1406', '§ 1406', '§ 9', '§ 9', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 636', '§ 9']

FindACase™ | Smith v. Goldberg
Cassandra M. Smith, Plaintiff,
Ralph Goldberg, Defendant.
Before the court for review is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”), filed on March 20, 2019 (ECF No. 27). The Report addresses Defendant Ralph Goldberg's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) (ECF No. 18 at 1) and recommends that Plaintiff Cassandra M. Smith's action (ECF No. 1) be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (ECF No. 27.) The court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 27) and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the court TRANSFERS this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
On March 20, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered her Report, concluding that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant and recommending the Complaint be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. (ECF No. 27 at 2-7.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, a matter filed in the wrong federal district court can be dismissed by the court or transferred to another federal court in which it could have been brought if it be in the interest of justice. The Magistrate Judge recommends a transfer, under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, because “the parties would reach the merits of this matter faster and with less cost than if Smith had to refile the matter in a new forum.” (Id. at 7.) Further, the Magistrate Judge reasons that “dismissal could produce an unduly harsh result” because a future action may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations under Georgia law, whereas this action was brought within the statutory period. (Id.) See also Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-24 (West 2019) (stating that breach of simple contracts carries a six-year statute of limitations under Georgia law).
As part of the Report, the Magistrate Judge notified the parties of their right to file specific objections by April 3, 2019. (ECF No. 27.) Defendant timely filed an Objection in which he disputes the Magistrate Judge's determination that “dismissal could produce an unduly harsh result in this case, given that the statute of limitations may preclude a future action.” (ECF No. 31 at 1 (quoting ECF No. 27 at 7).) Defendant argues that the case should be dismissed by the court, rather than transferred, because the action was filed after the four-year statute of limitations period for legal malpractice claims under Georgia law. (Id. at 2.)
On April 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed her Response requesting the dismissal of Defendant's Objection and noting that the Complaint alleges a breach of contract claim and is not strictly a legal malpractice claim. (ECF No. 32 at 3.) Plaintiff's Response notes that a Georgia statute provides that “simple contracts in writing” are subject to a six-year statute of limitations. (Id. at 1- 2 (citing Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-24).) In a letter dated May 1, 2019, sent from Defendant to Plaintiff, Defendant reiterated his claim that the statute of limitations has run in this case. (ECF No. 35.)
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District Court of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge only makes a recommendation to this court; the responsibility to make a final determination remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). This court engages in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which the parties have made specific objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific written objections to the Report and Recommendation results in a party's waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the district court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir.1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir.1984).
Defendant specifically objects to the statement in the Magistrate Judge's Report that “dismissal could produce an unduly harsh result in this case, given that the statute of limitations may preclude a future action.” (ECF No. 31 at 1 (quoting ECF No. 27 at 7).) This statement in the Report cites to a footnote in Defendant's Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26), where Defendant states the statute of limitations in this case is four (4) years. (ECF No. 27 at 7.) However, the case cited in the footnote concerned a legal malpractice action that carried a four-year statute of limitations. (See ECF No. 26 at 1 (citing Shores v. Troglin, 580 S.E.2d 659 (Ga.App. 2003)).) In Shores, a case only involving a legal malpractice claim and no alleged breach of contract claim, the Georgia Court of Appeals stated that the statute of limitations in Georgia for legal malpractice claims is four (4) years. (580 S.E.2d at 660 (citing Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn v. Frame, 507 S.E.2d 411, 412 (Ga. 1998)).) The Complaint only brings an action for breach of contract resulting from Defendant's alleged “failure to honor the contract” between himself and Plaintiff. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) The Complaint does not include a claim of legal malpractice. (See ECF No. 1 at 2-9.) Thus, this action is not barred by the four-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims cited by Defendant because this action alleges a breach of contract claim, and the appropriate statute of limitations is six (6), not four (4), years. (See ECF No. 26 at 1 (citing Shores, 580 S.E.2d 659).)[1]
This court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's assessment that a transfer of this action is the more appropriate outcome in the interest of justice because dismissal could prevent Plaintiff from filing a new action in the proper venue. (ECF No. 27 at 7.) The original action was filed within the applicable statutory period, but a new action may now be precluded by the statute of limitations proscribed under Georgia law. (See ECF No. 1.) See also Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-24 (stating that actions for breach of simple contracts carry a six-year statute of limitations). Therefore, this court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's assessment that “transfer, rather than dismissal, is the more just and favorable outcome here.” (ECF No. 27 at 7.) Accordingly, Defendant's objections are overruled.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;After a thorough and careful review of the record, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge&#39;s Report and Recommendation provides an accurate summary of the facts and law in this case. Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 27) and incorporates it herein by reference. For the reasons set out in the Report, the ...