Ritzmann v. Mainetti USA, Inc., 1:21-cv-11048

Plaintiff sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, and New York state and city human rights laws.
Plaintiff alleged venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because the acts complained of occurred there; she is a New York resident who traveled into NYC for business.
Defendant Mainetti is headquartered in New Jersey; plaintiff’s employment, primary work location, and the key events and conversations underlying the claims occurred at Mainetti’s New Jersey office.
The Court found the Complaint’s factual allegations did not support venue in SDNY and issued an order to show cause why the case should not be transferred to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1406.
The Court granted a two-week extension for plaintiff to respond but plaintiff failed to do so.
Applying 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the Court concluded a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in New Jersey and directed the Clerk to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper venue / transfer under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1406	Venue proper in SDNY because plaintiff is a NY resident who traveled to NYC and allegedly conducted business there	Key events and plaintiff’s work occurred at defendant’s New Jersey HQ, so the District of New Jersey is the proper venue	Court: SDNY is not the proper venue; case transferred to District of New Jersey under § 1406