Garnish and Gather, LLC v. Target Corporation, 1:19-cv-10404

Plaintiff Garnish & Gather, LLC (G&G) is a small Georgia-based seller of organic produce and ready-made foods; it currently does no business in New York but plans expansion into the NYC area.
Defendant Target Corporation (and Target Brands, Inc.) is incorporated and headquartered in Minnesota and operates stores in the New York City metro area.
G&G sued Target in the Southern District of New York for federal trademark infringement and dilution and for Georgia-law fraud and deceptive trade practices, alleging Target’s "Good & Gather" line willfully infringes G&G’s marks.
Target moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota; the parties agreed the case could have been brought there.
The Court evaluated the nine-factor forum-transfer test used in this circuit and concluded that, although several factors favored transfer, others—most notably plaintiff’s limited means and trial efficiency—militated against it.
The Court denied Target’s motion to transfer venue, finding Target did not meet its burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the balance of factors strongly favored transfer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether transfer under §1404(a) is warranted	Keep case in SDNY; plaintiff chose forum and transfer would burden small plaintiff	Transfer to Minnesota is appropriate for convenience and interest of justice	Denied—Target failed to show clear and convincing proof that balance strongly favors transfer
Convenience of witnesses/documents/locus of operative facts	Digital discovery reduces burden of document location; some inconvenience to plaintiff	Majority of witnesses and relevant documents are in Minnesota; operative decisions made at Target HQ in Minnesota	These factors favor transfer but are not dispositive alone
Relative means and party convenience	G&G is small and would be burdened by litigating in Minnesota; owner has family in NY making NY more convenient	Target is well-resourced and can bear travel/litigation costs; plaintiff sued away from home so any forum is acceptable	Weighs against transfer (mildly); court will not shift inconvenience solely from defendant to plaintiff
Plaintiff's forum choice and trial efficiency	Plaintiff's choice merits deference; SDNY schedule allows prompt trial readiness	Less deference because SDNY is not plaintiff's home and operative facts point to Minnesota	Plaintiff's choice afforded some weight; trial efficiency (already scheduled) weighs heavily against transfer

Berman v. Informix Corp., 30 F. Supp. 2d 653 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (two-step §1404(a) transfer inquiry and burden on movant to show transfer warranted)
In re Nematron Corp. Sec. Litig., 30 F. Supp. 2d 397 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (plaintiff's choice of forum entitled to considerable weight)
In Vivo Research, Inc. v. Magnetic Resonance Equip. Corp., 119 F. Supp. 2d 433 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (convenience of counsel is not an appropriate factor in transfer analysis)