United States District Court, District of Columbia
For BARBARA BOND, Plaintiff: Reginald J. Richter, LEAD ATTORNEY, THE RICHTER LAW GROUP, Washington, DC.
For ATSI/JACKSONVILLE JOB CORPS CENTER, Defendant: Elizabeth E. Pavlick, LEAD ATTORNEY, BONNER KIERNAN TREBACH & CROCIATA, LLP, Washington, DC.
MEMORANDUM OPINION [Dkt. # 40]
RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Barbara Bond (" Bond" or " plaintiff" ) brought this suit in 2010, pro
se, against her former employer, ATSI/Jacksonville Job Corps Center (" ATSI" or " defendant" ), and two individuals, alleging that she was sexually harassed by her former coworker and suffered employment discrimination while working for ATSI. Before the Court is defendant ATSI's Special Appearance Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, relevant law, and the entire record herein, the Court DENIES defendant's motion and will transfer the case to the District of Maryland.
Plaintiff, who currently resides in the District of Columbia, worked for defendant ATSI as a recreation specialist at the Jacksonville Job Corps Center (" JCC" ) in Jacksonville, Florida, fro at least 2008 until she resigned on October 23, 2009. Compl. [Dkt. # 1] ¶ ¶ 3, 4, 10. According to plaintiff, defendant's " principal place of business is Bethesda, Maryland," and its " corporate principal place [is] in Cleveland, Ohio." Id. ¶ 3. Documents submitted by defendant indicate that ATSI was formed in Maryland in 1992 with its principal office in Bethesda, Maryland. See Def. ATSI's Special Appearance Reply Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [Dkt. # 43] (" Def.'s Reply" ), Ex. 1.
Plaintiff contends that, during her tenure at ATSI at the Jacksonville JCC, a coworker sexually harassed her, and ATSI discriminated against and constructively discharged her. See generally Compl. Her complaint identified three defendants: ATSI; Clark V. Hayes, who plaintiff alleges was the owner, CEO, and an employee of ATSI; and Marvin Owens, an employee of ATSI. Id. ¶ ¶ 5-7. The Court previously granted Mr. Owens' and Mr. Hayes' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Order [Dkt. # 31]; Order [Dkt. # 32]. All that remains are plaintiff's allegations against defendant ATSI.
Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). See Def. ATSI's Special Appearance Mot. Dismiss and Mem. Supp. Mot. Dismiss [Dkt. # 40] (" Def.'s Mot." ); Def.'s Reply. Plaintiff opposes this motion, arguing that personal jurisdiction over defendant exists, or, in the alternative, that the action should be transferred to another district in the interests of justice. See Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. Dismiss [Dkt. # 42] (" Pl.'s Opp'n" ).
Defendant moves to dismiss this case on the ground the Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant and because venue is improper in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff contests the first point but appears to concede the second. The Court agrees with defendant that both jurisdiction and proper venue are wanting; ...