/>iUnusual one for you today.
In Nock v. Spring Energy, 2025 WL 2046196 (S.D. N.Y. July 22, 2025) the court entered an order transferring a TCPA case to Maryland.
Ok, fairly blasé. What’s the point Czar?
Well it was the Plaintiff’s motion to transfer– very unusual.
And what’s more, the motion to transfer was granted after discovery closed and the defendant had prepared a summary judgment motion.
Now we’re talking.
So this Nock character apparently filed two class actions arising out of the same marketing campaign but against two defendants– Spring Energy in New York and Indra Energy in Maryland.
His counsel also filed suit on behalf of a different defendant on a related campaign in Maryland.
These other cases are much earlier in their development– discovery is still open in each. As mentioned, however, in the Nock case against Spring discovery was closed and defendant had apparently filed a summary judgment motion.
Usually in these circumstances:
- It is the defendant that seeks to transfer the case; and
- The transfer is of the new cases to the venue of the first filed case.
Here we see exactly the opposite– the Plaintiff moved to transfer the fist filed case to align with later filed cases.
Very very odd.
Still the court allowed the transfer, concluding–somehow– that defendant would not be prejudiced.
Better stated– the Defendant focused its arguments on prejudice from consolidation of the cases, but the court elected to merely transfer the case and not to consolidate.
This may seem a minor point but it was enough of a distinction for the court to latch on and order the case transferred in the interests of justice.
As I said, unusual one.
But also fun.
Every little detail matters in TCPAWorld folks.
