Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,
23-CV-1034 0 (LTS) -against-
TRANSFER ORDER FCM AND RFED WITH CFTE, ET AL.,
Defendants.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se , brings this action alleging that Defendants have not returned his “trading money.” (ECF 1, at 5.) Named as Defendants are “FCM and RFED with CFTE,” a company located in Warren, New Jersey; and Mia Alexis, an employee of that company. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 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 (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.
Under Section 1391(c), a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is domiciled, and an “entity with the capacity to sue and be sued” resides in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1), (2).
Plaintiff, who resides in Bronx, New York, alleges that Defendants did not return $20,000 that he gave them for trading. He asserts that the alleged events giving rise to his claims occurred *2 in New York, but he does not allege how the trading transactions occurred, whether it was done online, by phone, by mail, or in person. Therefore, it is not clear that the alleged trading occurred in New York, and that venue is proper in this court under Section 1391(b)(2). Plaintiff further asserts that all of the defendants are in Warren, New Jersey, which is located in the District of New Jersey. 28 U.S.C. § 110.
Even if the Court did assume that the trading occurred in New York, and that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(2), because the defendants are in New Jersey, where they may be subject to that court’s personal jurisdiction, venue would also be proper in the District of New Jersey under Section 1391(b)(1), and (3).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), even if a case is filed in a jurisdiction where venue is proper, a court may transfer the case to any other district where it might have been brought “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider the following ten factors: (1) the convenience of witnesses; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the locus of operative facts; (4) the availability of process to compel the attendance of the unwilling witnesses; (5) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) the forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded to the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (9) trial efficiency; and (10) the interest of justice, based on the totality of circumstances. Keitt v. N.Y. City , 882 F. Supp. 2d 412, 459-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc. , 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (setting forth similar factors). A plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded less deference where the plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum and the operative events did not occur there. See Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp. , 274 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 2001).
Under Section 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. Plaintiff brings claims arising from trading with a company in New Jersey. It is reasonable to expect that all relevant documents concerning the trades would be in New Jersey, and that Defendants would be subject to the New Jersey court’s personal jurisdiction. The District of New Jersey appears to be a more convenient forum for this action. Accordingly, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener , 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006) (“District courts have broad discretion in making determinations of convenience under Section 1404(a) and notions of convenience and fairness are considered on a case-by-case basis.”).
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed further without prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. A summons shall not issue from this Court. This order closes this case in this court.
The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States , 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 12, 2023
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Ta ylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge