Nova Nordeplast Indústria E Comércio De Plásticos LTDA. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.Nova Nordeplast Indústria E Comércio De Plásticos LTDA. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Joseph A. Marutollo
JOSEPH A. MARUTOLLO, United States Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiffs Nova Nordeplast Indústria E Comércio De Plásticos LTDA and ACG DO Brasil S.A., foreign corporations organized in Brazil, bring this action to “seek information, close fraudulent bank account[s], and seek reimbursement” against defendants John Does Corporations 1-5 and John Does 1-5 (the “John Doe Defendants“). See generally, Complaint (“Compl.“), Dkt. No. 1. As the John Doe defendants’ identities were unknown to Plaintiffs at the time of filing, Plaintiffs asserted claims against defendant J.P. Morgan Chase (“Chase“) to “direct the defendant to release information pertaining [to] John Does Corporations 1-5 and John Does 1-5.” Id.
On March 5, 2024, the Court requested that Plaintiffs show cause as to why this action should not be transferred sua sponte to a different forum. See Text Order dated March 5, 2024. Plaintiffs responded to the Court‘s Order in a letter-brief filed on March 18, 2024. See Dkt. No. 23. After thoroughly reviewing Plaintiffs‘s submission, this Court hereby ORDERS that (i) venue is improper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and (ii) that
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiffs filed the instant action on May 5, 2023. See generally Compl. Plaintiffs are foreign corporations organized in Brazil, headquartered in Mumbai, India, and engaged in pharmaceutical dosage manufacturing. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 7. Plaintiffs assert that the John Doe Defendants have “without permission and fraudulently opened [a] bank account” in Plaintiffs’ name at a Chase bank branch located at 1100 S Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Id. at ¶ 12. After opening the purportedly fraudulent bank accounts, the John Doe Defendants allegedly “sent an email to [Plaintiffs‘] customer” requesting that payment be made to the fraudulent account. Id. at ¶ 16. The customer remitted payment in the amount of $188,236.32—an amount that was “received in these fraudulent accounts.” Id. at ¶ 17.
Though Plaintiffs name “John Does Corporations 1-5 and John Does 1-5” as defendants, Plaintiffs admit that their names and addresses “are currently not known.” Id. ¶ 6. To aid in obtaining additional information as to the identities of the John Does, Plaintiffs also brought a
Summonses were issued as to all defendants—including Chase. Dkt. No. 6. On September 1, 2023, Chase requested a pre-motion conference in front of the Honorable Nicholas G. Garaufis, United States District Judge, in contemplation of a motion to dismiss pursuant to
At the September 20, 2023 pre-motion conference, “[c]ounsel for both parties announced to the court that a settlement-in-principal was reached wherein Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the claims as against Defendant Chase without prejudice and stay the claims against the John Doe Defendants pending the receipt of information that may assist Plaintiffs in identifying these John Does.” Id.
Following additional litigation in this action, on January 25, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to Defendant Chase—which was later endorsed by Judge Garaufis, thereby dismissing Chase from this action. See Dkt. Nos. 16-17.
On February 22, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend/Correct/Supplement the Complaint. Dkt. No. 19. Plaintiffs seek to substitute the John Doe Defendants by naming Curtis Wade Moody Jr. (“Moody“), UPC Chem (“UPC“), Monique Denise Lewis (“Lewis“), and Ningbo Anbor Hardware Co. (“Ningbo“) as defendants. See generally Proposed Amended Complaint (“Proposed Am. Compl.“), Dkt. No. 19-1. Plaintiffs Proposed Amended Complaint avers that each Defendant is a California resident. Id. at ¶¶ 5-8. Specifically, defendant Moody is a natural person who resides at 20336 E Walnut Canyon Road, Walnut, California 91789. Id. at ¶ 5.
On February 22, 2024, upon review of Plaintiffs’ Proposed Amended Complaint, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a letter demonstrating why venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of New York. See Text Order dated February 22, 2024. On February 26, 2024, Plaintiffs informed the Court that venue was proper in the Eastern District as the “forum was chosen based on location of [Chase‘s] head quarters in New York.” Dkt. No. 21. Upon review of Plaintiffs’ letter, the Court expressed that it is inclined to transfer this action, sua sponte, to a different forum. See Order to Show Cause, dated March 5, 2024. Further, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a letter brief responding to its Order to Show Cause and recommend “the district(s) to which this action should be transferred.” Id.
In its response to this Court‘s Order, Plaintiffs reiterated that venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because it is the location of Chase‘s headquarters in New York. Dkt. No. 23, at 2. Plaintiffs also assert that “financial hardship” to the Plaintiffs weighs against a transfer of venue—in part, because “the Plaintiff will have to hire new attorneys.” Id. Should the Court decide to transfer this action to a more appropriate venue, Plaintiffs propose that the U.S District
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Central District of California presents a more appropriate venue for this action.
B. Legal Standard
A civil action may be brought in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court‘s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.”
If that threshold inquiry is satisfied, the Court proceeds to the second step. “To that end, the court may consider a host of equitable factors, including (1) convenience of witnesses; (2) convenience of the parties; (3) location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the locus of the operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) the comparative familiarity of each district with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded to plaintiff‘s choice of forum; and (9) judicial economy and the interests of justice.” Rare Breed Triggers, 669 F. Supp. 3d at 179 (citation and quotation marks omitted). These factors are “non-exclusive” and the “relative weight of each factor depends on the particular circumstances of the case.” Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted).
In exercising their discretion to transfer a case under § 1404, district courts give due deference to the plaintiff‘s choice of venue. Woldanski v. TuSimple Holdings, Inc., No. 22-CV-9625 (AKH), 2023 WL 1795191, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2023). Courts, however, give less deference to a plaintiff‘s choice of forum if the plaintiff is not a resident in the forum. Id.
Courts have discretion to transfer a case sua sponte under
C. Discussion
The newly-added Defendants in the Proposed Amended Complaint have yet to appear in this action and have not had the opportunity to present their views as to whether venue is appropriate in this District or, conversely, whether venue would be appropriate in the Central
1. Plaintiffs have failed to explain why venue is appropriate in this District.
As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately explain why venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs assert that venue is proper in this District because Defendant Chase is headquartered—and maintains its attorneys—in the Eastern District of New York. Dkt. Nos. 21, 23.
Facially, however, this argument is incorrect as Chase‘s headquarters—which Plaintiffs assert as 270 Park Avenue in New York County (Compl. ¶ 5)—are located squarely within the Southern District of New York, the latter which encompasses the counties of New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess, and Sullivan. See, e.g., Rabinowitz v. Kelman, 75 F.4th 73, n. 4 (2d Cir. 2023) (citing
Moreover, Plaintiffs do not argue (or provide any support) for the idea that some portion of Chase‘s work traveled across the “waters within the counties of [the] Bronx and New York” (
2. The case could have been brought in the Central District of California.
Plaintiffs do not explicitly address the first part in the two-part inquiry, namely, “whether the case could have been brought in the proposed transferee district.” See Herbert Ltd. P‘ship, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 285. As Plaintiffs recommend that this action be transferred to the Southern
First, both districts have subject matter jurisdiction because the Proposed Amended Complaint alleges that the parties are diverse and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. These allegations sufficiently establish diversity jurisdiction.
Next, both districts could have exercised personal jurisdiction over Defendants at this case‘s inception. “Federal courts’ personal jurisdiction over parties is authorized by the long-arm statute of the state in which they sit.” Erickson, 2014 WL 12774971, at *2 (citing
Defendants easily meet this standard. Plaintiffs assert that each of the proposed defendants are either natural persons residing within the Central and Southern Districts of California or California corporations with a principal place of business within the Central and Southern Districts of California. Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-8. Specifically, Defendants Moody, UPC, and Ningbo can be considered residents of the Central District of California. Id. at ¶¶ 5-6, 8. Defendant Lewis resides in San Diego, California—or squarely within the Southern District of California. Id. at ¶ 7. But a corporation purportedly owned and operating by Defendant Lewis has its principal place of business within the Central District of California—in Los Angeles. Id. at ¶ 8. Because all Defendants are subject to jurisdiction in the Central District of California, the Court finds that this
3. Equitable factors favor transfer to the Central District of California
A balanced review of the relevant nine equitable factors also supports transfer to the Central District of California based on convenience and in the interests of justice. See
a. Four factors favor transfer to the Central District of California
Four factors clearly favor transfer of this action to the Central District of California: the locus of operative facts; the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; the convenience of the parties; and the weight accorded to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum.
Importantly, the locus of operative facts is, unquestionably, in California and is the factor that most strongly favors transfer to the Central District of California. See ZPC 2000, Inc. v. SCA Grp., Inc., 86 F. Supp. 2d 274, 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“the location of operative events is a primary factor in determining a motion to transfer venue“) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Am. Steamship Owners Mut. Prot. & Indem. Ass‘n, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 474, 485 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff‘d sub nom., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs assert that a fraudulent bank account was opened in Plaintiffs’ name at a Chase Bank branch located at 1100 S Diamond Bar Blvd, Diamond Bar, California 91765. The Court notes that the city of Diamond Bar is located squarely within the Central District of California. See, e.g. United States v. Real Prop. Located in Diamond Bar California, No. 09-CV-00609 (SJO) (AJW), 2013 WL 12471329 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2013).
Further, as noted above, the individuals and corporations against whom Plaintiffs’ assert claims are located in the Central District of California. Taking notice of these facts, the “center of
Thus, the facts in this case strongly support transfer to the Central District of California. See, e.g., Conrad, 2021 WL 5909656, at *7 (finding that “the convenience of potential witnesses, the location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof, the convenience of parties, the locus of operative facts, and the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, all favor a transfer to the Central District of California.“); Transatlantic Reinsurance Co. v. Cont‘l Ins. Co., No. 03-CV-3227 (CBM), 2003 WL 22743829, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2003) (“In determining the locus of operative facts, a court must look to the site of events from which the claim arises.“).
And, for the same reason that the operative facts are in the Central District of California, the relative ease of access to sources of proof—namely, the location of the branch where the alleged fraudulent acts took place—further support transfer to the Central District of California.
The convenience of the parties likewise favors transfer. Plaintiffs are foreign corporations suing California residents. Proposed Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4-8. Plaintiffs do not argue that litigating in the Central District of California would be inconvenient for them. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that “[i]f the venue is transferred to another district, the Plaintiffs will have to hire new attorneys putting extra financial burden on the Plaintiffs.” Dkt. No. 23. This assertion is unavailing. “The transfer statute (
Moreover, Plaintiff‘s choice of forum is not entitled to great weight because the operative facts are not tied to this district. “To be sure, the Court recognizes that a plaintiff‘s choice of forum is accorded considerable weight in the
Finally, while Plaintiffs’ choice of forum deserves “due consideration,” this Court gives Plaintiffs’ choice of forum less deference because Plaintiffs are not residents of their chosen forum. Woldanski v. TuSimple Holdings, Inc., 2023 WL 1795191, at *4 (citing Sec. & Exch. Comm‘n v. Am. Renal Assoc. Holdings, No. 21-CV-10366 (JPO), 2022 WL 1166087 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2022) (“plaintiff‘s choice of venue is given less deference where . . . the plaintiff‘s residence is not the
b. Four factors are neutral and do not favor or disfavor transfer
Four factors are neutral and therefore neither favor nor disfavor transfer to the Central District of California. First, Plaintiffs do not proffer facts to show that the process to compel attendance of unwilling witnesses, will be necessary in either forum.
Second, the relative means of the parties is also neutral because the Court possesses no information at this time as to the financial means of the Defendants. Additionally, as noted above, the “inconvenience caused [to] plaintiff due to the need to retain local counsel in the transferee district is of little, if any, weight on a motion to transfer.” Scheinbart, 367 F. Supp. 707, at 710.
Third, as to the “convenience of witnesses” factor, there is no indication that any witnesses are located or reside in the Eastern District of New York. Further, should this case proceed to discovery, the Defendants and non-party bank branch representatives who may be identified as witnesses are likely all located in California. As Plaintiffs fail to identify the location of potential witnesses, this factor is at best neutral. See, e.g., Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Tala Bros. Corp., 457 F. Supp. 2d 474, 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“Having failed to identify particular unwilling witnesses who might be more available in California than in New York, the Defendants have failed to establish that this factor weighs in their favor.“).
Fourth, the “forum‘s familiarity with governing law” factor is also, at best, neutral. “A forum‘s familiarity with the governing law [] is one of the least important factors in determining a motion to transfer, especially where no complex questions of foreign law are involved.” ESPN, Inc. v. Quiksilver, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d 542, 551 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). To the extent that Plaintiffs bring a federal fraud claim against Defendants, this district and the Central District of California
c. The interests of justice favor transfer to the Central District of California
Finally, with respect to the interests of justice, “[t]he appropriate considerations for this factor have been largely, if not entirely, developed while discussing the preceding eight factors.” Nat‘l Experiential, LLC, 2021 WL 9678642, at *7; cf. Bakken Res., Inc. v. Edington, No. 15-CV-8686 (ALC), 2019 WL 1437273, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) (denying transfer as “contrary to the interests of justice” when “plaintiff did not produce any factual or party nexus connecting the present case” to the requested transfer forum). “When the events giving rise to a claim occurred in another district, it is reasonable to transfer the case to the district in which the events occurred.” Donde v. Romano, No. 09-CV-04407 (DLI) (VVP), 2010 WL 3173321, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2010). Judicial economy also favors transfer, as this litigation remains in its early stages in this district and discovery has not begun. See, e.g., Pecorino v. Vutec Corp., 934 F. Supp. 2d 422, 444 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (finding that the fact that “[t]here has not yet been a significant investment by the Eastern District of New York in this case in terms of either time or work” favored transfer); Merida v. Stark, No. 23-CV-2239 (MKB) (JAM), 2024 WL 48139, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2024).
D. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court sua sponte ORDERS that this action be transferred to the Central District of California. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for Central District of California within seven days of the date of this Order, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.1. The Court further declines to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend the Complaint, as such a ruling will be within the purview of the transferee district. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the Motion at Dkt. No. 19, transfer this action to the Central District of California within seven days of the date of this Order, and administratively close the docket in this District.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 29, 2024
/s/ Joseph A. Marutollo
JOSEPH A. MARUTOLLO
United States Magistrate Judge