914 F. Supp. 2d 230
N.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Andrews and Mace allege FLSA/NYLL wage and overtime violations, plus discrimination and retaliation; they seek class/collective actions.
- Defendants Roman & Associates, Inc. and Anthony C. Roman operate primarily from Lynbrook, NY (Eastern District of NY).
- Named Plaintiffs worked as Field Investigators; wage policies and overtime calculations allegedly originated from the Lynbrook office.
- Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification; defendants moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of NY (EDNY).
- The court considers whether transfer to EDNY promotes convenience and justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); venue has nexus to EDNY.
- Court concludes that the locus of operative facts and witnesses are centered in EDNY, justifying transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer to EDNY is warranted under § 1404(a). | Plaintiffs argue EDNY is more convenient due to witnesses and operations there. | Defendants contend EDNY is the proper center for decisions and witnesses; Northern District is less convenient. | Transfer to EDNY warranted. |
| Impact of plaintiffs' forum choice on transfer analysis. | Forum should be Northern District given plaintiffs’ residences and operations. | Eastern District has greater connection; transfer favored, especially for class/collective actions. | Connections to EDNY outweigh plaintiffs’ forum choice. |
| Convenience of witnesses and locus of operative facts. | Some witnesses and activities occur in Northern District, supporting Northern venue for efficiency. | Most witnesses and decisive conduct originated and occur in EDNY; locus favors EDNY. | Convenience and locus favor transfer to EDNY. |
| Availability of process and relative means considerations. | Plaintiffs have modest means; travel to EDNY would be burdensome. | No party refused to appear; financial means are neutral without evidence. | Process availability neutral; relative means not fatal to transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (transfer must serve convenience and justice; broad discretion in transfer decisions)
- Lipton v. The Nature Co., 781 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (burden to justify transfer; factors not strictly formulaic)
- 800-Flowers, Inc. v. Intercontinental Florist, Inc., 860 F. Supp. 128 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (relative means factor; transfer weighs if burden demonstrated)
- Pellegrino v. Stratton Corp., 679 F. Supp. 1164 (N.D.N.Y. 1988) (heavy burden on mover to justify transfer)
- Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. Melvin Simon Prods., Inc., 774 F. Supp. 858 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (center of gravity and witnesses important in transfer)
- Ahmed v. T.J. Maxx Corp., 777 F. Supp. 2d 445 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (collective action considerations impact transfer analysis)
- In re Warrick, 70 F.3d 736 (2d Cir. 1995) (plaintiff’s status as class/collective action affects weight of forum choice)