Rodriguez v. FCM & RFED, 3:23-cv-23278

Rafael Rodriguez, a pro se plaintiff residing in Bronx, New York, filed suit seeking the return of $20,000 he alleges was not returned by defendants after trading activities.
The named defendants are “FCM and RFED with CFTE,” a New Jersey company, and Mia Alexis, an employee of the company, both located in Warren, New Jersey.
Rodriguez alleges events giving rise to his claim occurred in New York but provides no specifics about where or how the trading occurred.
The court analyzed venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and concluded the defendants reside in New Jersey, and relevant acts likely occurred there.
Citing the convenience of parties and witnesses, and the location of evidence, the Court considered factors related to a discretionary venue transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The Chief Judge ordered the action transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper Venue	Venue is proper in SDNY because events occurred in NY	Not specified; defendants are NJ-based	Venue proper in NJ because defendants and evidence are there
Specificity of Trading Facts	Events happened in NY	Not specified	Facts did not sufficiently tie the claim to NY
Convenience under 1404(a)	Not specified	Not specified	Transfer to NJ is appropriate for convenience
Filing Fees/In Forma Pauperis	Not addressed	Not addressed	Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied

Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp., 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (less deference to plaintiff’s forum choice if not resident or operative facts did not occur there)
D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (district courts have broad discretion in venue transfers under Section 1404(a))
N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (setting forth factors for venue transfer analysis)