7:11-cv-06890
S.D.N.Y.Dec 13, 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Stuart N. Bossom and Joel Bossom sue Buena Cepa Wines, LLC and Buena Cepa Wines USA, LLC for breach of employment contract, enforcement of a judgment, and fees.
- Stuart worked 2009–2010 in New York under an employment agreement; Joel provided legal services in New York.
- Buena USA acquired Buena’s assets and operates from New Jersey; Buena’s HQ is in Florida; Plaintiffs allege Buena USA is successor to Buena and liable for its debts.
- Defendants move to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404; court exercises diversity jurisdiction under § 1332.
- Venue under § 1391(a) could be New Jersey because Buena USA’s principal place of business is New Jersey; court must decide whether transfer is warranted.
- Court applies 1404(a) balancing test and concludes NY is proper and transfer is not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue could be properly transferred to New Jersey. | Bossom preference for New York; substantial events occurred there. | Buena USA HQ in New Jersey; action could have been filed there. | No transfer; venue in New York proper. |
| Whether the 1404(a) factors support transfer for convenience. | Plaintiffs’ witnesses and events center in New York; court should keep forum. | Some witnesses and operations in New Jersey; travel burden considerations. | Factors favor keeping the case in New York; no transfer warranted. |
| Locus of operative facts and governing law. | Most facts and contract breaches occurred in New York; New York law applies. | Corporate decisions in New Jersey; broader contact with New Jersey. | Operative facts center in New York; New York law applies; weighs against transfer. |
| Relative means and forum familiarity. | Plaintiffs are individuals; defendants have greater resources; court familiarity with law favors NY. | Defendants have greater means; travel less burdensome for them. | Plaintiffs’ forum choice and local law familiarity favor NY; no transfer. |
| Plaintiffs’ choice of forum versus defendant’s burden. | Plaintiffs filed in NY; most events there; forum should be upheld. | Defendants contend convenience favors NJ. | Plaintiffs’ choice of forum weighs strongly in favor of denying transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glass v. S & M NuTec, 456 F. Supp. 2d 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (venue transfer requires consideration of transferee district availability)
- D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (broader discretion to balance transfer factors)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 61 (1964) (transferee district should be in interest of justice)
- Filmline (Cross-Country) Prods., Inc. v. United Artists Corp., 865 F.2d 513 (2d Cir. 1989) (plaintiff’s choice of forum should be favored absent compelling transfer)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ryan, 182 F.2d 329 (2d Cir. 1950) (consideration of convenience of witnesses in transfer analysis)
- Am. Steamship Owners Mut. Protection & Indem. Ass'n v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (location of documents is a neutral factor in modern practice)