SCHWARTZ v. PLANALYTICS, INC., 1:16-cv-03933

Richard Schwartz, a 55-year-old salesperson, worked remotely for Planalytics, Inc. for six years and notified HR in June 2016 of cancer and atrial flutter and intent to seek FMLA leave.
Three days after notification, Planalytics terminated Schwartz for alleged poor performance; Schwartz alleges he was a top performer with no prior discipline.
Schwartz sued in D.N.J. asserting federal claims (FMLA, ADA, ADEA) and New Jersey law claims (NJLAD, NJFMLA, and breach of covenant of good faith).
Planalytics moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, to dismiss several claims for failure to state a claim, or alternatively to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a).
The district court found federal question jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, concluded transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was appropriate, granted transfer, and denied other relief without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction in New Jersey	Planalytics purposefully employed Schwartz to work from his NJ home for six years; many employment contacts occurred in NJ.	Planalytics has only attenuated contacts with NJ (incorporated and operates in PA; no NJ office; work centralized in Berwyn, PA); Schwartz chose to work from home.	Court did not resolve jurisdiction finally but found transfer appropriate; jurisdiction over defendant exists in Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Proper venue	Plaintiff chose D.N.J. because he lives in NJ and worked from home there.	Venue is improper in D.N.J.; key witnesses, documents, and corporate operations are in Berwyn, PA; Eastern District of PA is proper and convenient.	Transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted under § 1404(a)/§ 1406(a).
Whether to dismiss vs. transfer when jurisdiction doubtful	Transfer is unnecessary if D.N.J. has jurisdiction.	If D.N.J. lacks jurisdiction, transfer is preferable to dismissal.	Court exercised discretion to transfer rather than resolve personal jurisdiction or dismiss.
Viability of NJ-specific statutory claims (NJFMLA, NJLAD)	Plaintiff asserts NJ statutes apply because he worked from NJ.	Planalytics argues it is not a NJ employer subject to NJ statutes.	Court left these merits/jurisdictional questions for the transferee court to decide; defendant may refile dismissal motions after transfer.

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (jurisdiction principles cited regarding state authority)
Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of California, 480 U.S. 102 (purposeful availment analysis)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and fair warning to defendant)
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (contacts must not be random, fortuitous, or attenuated)
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (specific vs. general jurisdiction framework)
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (courts may transfer even if venue/personal jurisdiction defect exists)
Leroy v. Great Western United Corp., 443 U.S. 173 (venue and jurisdiction are personal privileges subject to waiver; courts may consider venue before jurisdiction)
Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (transfer analysis and discretion)
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir.) (private and public interest factors in § 1404(a) transfer analysis)
Lafferty v. St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72 (3d Cir.) (procedural posture and transfer considerations)