Salzman v. The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company

Filing 12

OPINION & ORDER re: 3 MOTION to Transfer Case filed by The Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company. The motion is GRANTED. This action is transferred to the District of Connecticut. The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 3, and close this case. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on 7/20/2016) Copies Sent By Chambers. (kko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X

7/20/2016

ALAN SALZMAN,
Plaintiff,

16-CV-04008 (GBD)(SN)
OPINION & ORDER

-againstTHE TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge:

Defendant Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company moves under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a) to transfer this insurance dispute to the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut. Connecticut is the center of gravity in this case—the insured property, the insurer,
all witnesses, documents, and other sources of proof are located there. Accordingly, the motion is
granted.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
Pro se plaintiff Alan Salzman, a New York resident and attorney, owns property in
Southbury, Connecticut. Travelers issued a homeowners insurance policy covering the property.
In October 2015, Salzman’s Connecticut-based insurance broker Shildneck & Associates
notified Travelers of a claim of loss concerning the property. Travelers’s Connecticut-based
inspectors investigated the claim. Defendant Joseph Juliano, a Connecticut-based Travelers
adjustor, also inspected the property with the assistance of a Connecticut-based engineering
company. Travelers denied portions of his claim. Salzman filed a complaint with the Connecticut
Insurance Department, which opened an investigation but took no action. In April 2016, Salzman

sued the defendants for breach of contract in New York state court, and Travelers removed the
case to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Travelers now moves to transfer this case to the District of Connecticut under 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a), arguing that all of the statutory factors weigh in favor of transferring venue. Salzman
did not timely oppose the motion. On July 6, 2016, the Court extended Salzman’s time to
respond and warned him that if he did not respond by July 15, 2016, the Court would consider
the matter to be fully briefed. Salzman did not respond, and the Court deems the defendants’
motion to be unopposed.
As a preliminary matter, granting a motion to transfer venue is within the authority of a
magistrate judge. A magistrate judge may:
hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court,
except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings,
for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or
information made by the defendant in a criminal case, to dismiss or
to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily
dismiss an action.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). In short, a magistrate judge may grant non-dispositive motions that do
not implicate the federal court’s jurisdiction to hear a case. “A motion for transfer of venue under
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is a non-dispositive motion because it can result only in the transfer of the
case to another federal district, not in a decision on the merits or even a determination of federal
jurisdiction.” Adams v. Key Tronic Corp., 94 Civ. A0535 (MBM), 1997 WL 1864, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 1997); see also Anghel v. New York State Dep’t of Educ., 15 Civ. 5917
(SJF)(SIL), 2015 WL 7302250, at *1 n.2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2015) (citing cases). Accordingly,
the Court will determine this motion by Order rather than by issuing a Report and
Recommendation to the Honorable George B. Daniels.

2

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been
brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In determining whether to grant a motion to transfer venue, a
court considers:
(1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the convenience of witnesses,
(3) the location of relevant documents and relevant ease of access to
sources of proof, (4) the convenience of parties, (5) the locus of
operative facts, (6) the availability of process to compel the
attendance of unwilling witnesses, and (7) the relative means of the
parties.
N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Here, the factors favor a transfer to the District of Connecticut. Salzman chose New York
as a forum, but no operative fact connects this controversy to this state. The witnesses, relevant
documents, sources of proof, opposing parties, and locus of operative facts are all located in
Connecticut. Nor does it appear that litigating in Connecticut would pose a hardship to
Salzman—his residence in that state is the subject of this lawsuit.
CONCLUSION
The motion is GRANTED. This action is transferred to the District of Connecticut. The
Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 3, and close this case.
SO ORDERED.

DATED:

New York, New York
July 20, 2016

cc:

Alan Salzman (By Chambers)
233 Broadway, Suite 900
New York, NY 10279

3