I disagree. A venue change refreshes the tard shield that only finally starting to break after 5 years. Plus iirc Florida judge didn't seem particularly in our favor.
First, SIR, it's TardGuard™ thank you very much, don't make this an abuse of trademark case, too.
Second, the TardGuard™ really only applies to about half of the courtshit - those where the "harmed" party is (in theory) the court itself, so it can be lenient - I'm talking missing deadlines, filing badly, IPF®, etc.
The other half is stuff that harms the case or the defendants (and even here they minimize but cannot remove) - especially once in discovery, TardGuard™ is about as effective as perfume as bear spray.
The court apparently operates under a legal fiction that everything BEFORE discovery is "free" (or mostly so) for both parties, and so financial harm is minimized, but once discovery starts, the court admits that shit costs money, yo.