Karam v. New York Power Authority et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 30 MOTION to Transfer Case . filed by Richard Douglass, Christine Schmitt, New York Power Authority, James Muscatello. Defendant's motion to transfer venue is DENIED. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #30). (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 4/19/2017) (rj)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY,
CHRISTINE SCHMITT, JAMES
MUSCATELLO and RICHARD DOUGLASS,
16 CV 6286 (VB)
Plaintiff Mark Karam brings this employment discrimination action against his current
employer, the New York Power Authority (“NYPA”), and three fellow NYPA employees.
Defendants move to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). (Doc. #30).
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367(a).
Plaintiff resides in the Utica, New York, area in upstate New York, and works in a NYPA
facility in Utica. Utica is located in the Northern District of New York. NYPA is a quasigovernmental corporation that operates power-generating facilities and sells electricity to
customers throughout the state. NYPA is headquartered in White Plains, New York, in the
Southern District of New York. The courthouse to which this case is assigned is also located in
White Plains. Utica is approximately a 3½ hour drive from the White Plains courthouse. The
Northern and Southern Districts of New York are, of course, adjacent to one another. Although
the alleged underlying discriminatory conduct by defendant Douglass took place in Utica,
plaintiff allegedly complained about that conduct to NYPA’s Human Resources department in
White Plains. Material decisions regarding plaintiff’s employment were allegedly made at
NYPA headquarters in White Plains; for example, plaintiff claims that his supervisor, defendant
Schmitt, who is based in White Plains, retaliated against him for complaining about Douglass.
Plaintiff also alleges that NYPA employees in White Plains decided to ignore his complaints
about Douglass and to take no remedial action with respect to Douglass. Relevant documents are
maintained in both Utica and White Plains. Of the ten potential witnesses identified by the
parties, five are based in White Plains and five are based in Utica. All ten witnesses are NYPA
Plaintiff commenced this action on August 9, 2016 (Doc. #1), and defendants were all
served in September 2016. (Docs. ##11-16). Defendants answered on October 31, 2016 (Docs.
##15-18), and filed the instant motion on February 27, 2017 (Doc. #26). 1
“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). “The purpose of § 1404(a) is to prevent waste of time, energy and money
and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and
expense.” In re Stillwater Mining Co. Sec. Litig., 2003 WL 21087953, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 12,
2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“Absent consent, a motion to transfer venue requires a two-part inquiry: first, whether the
action to be transferred might have been brought in the transferee court; and second, whether
Defendants’ motion to transfer was initially rejected by the Clerk’s office due to a filing
error. It was re-filed on March 27, 2017. (Doc. #30).
considering the convenience of parties and witnesses, and the interest of justice, a transfer is
appropriate.” Mohsen v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 2013 WL 5312525, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
23, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
It is the moving party’s burden to make a clear and convincing showing that transfer is
appropriate. N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 114 (2d Cir.
To Transfer Or Not To Transfer
The parties agree that this case could have been brought in either the Northern District or
the Southern District. The question, then, is whether transfer to the Northern District is
warranted in the interest of justice.
A district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer a case pursuant to
Section 1404(a). See In re Cuyahoga Equip. Corp., 980 F.2d 110, 116-17 (2d Cir. 1992);
Filmline (Cross–Country) Prods., Inc. v. United Artists Corp., 865 F.2d 513, 520 (2d Cir. 1989).
The Court should consider, among other things: “(1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the
convenience of witnesses, (3) the location of relevant documents and relative 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.” D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2006)
(internal quotations and bracket omitted).
The plaintiffs’ choice of forum is the first consideration in deciding a Section 1404(a)
transfer motion, and that choice is “entitled to substantial consideration.” Warrick v. Gen. Elec.
Co., 70 F.3d 736, 741 (2d Cir. 1995) (internal quotations omitted). Indeed, “unless the balance is
strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”
Lykes Bros. S.S. Co. v. Sugarman, 272 F.2d 679, 681 (2d Cir. 1959) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v.
Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)).
Having carefully considered all of the relevant factors, the Court concludes that
plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be disturbed. As for convenience of witnesses, five of the
identified witnesses are located in the Southern District and five are located in the Northern
District. Even if some of the more “important” witnesses are based in Utica, as defendants
contend, this factor hardly weighs strongly in favor of transfer. And there are no non-party
witnesses, so all witnesses will be equally available to both sides.
Moreover, the locus of operative facts is split between the two districts, and both sides
will have equal and easy access to relevant documents given that document production these
days largely takes place electronically.
As for the convenience of parties, plaintiff (who lives and works in the Utica area) is
obviously willing to travel to White Plains in connection with the case; the other individual
parties and witnesses are all NYPA employees who will undoubtedly be compensated for their
time and travel expenses; and NYPA’s headquarters are in White Plains and it has operations in
both districts. Thus, this factor does not favor defendants.
Likewise, plaintiff is an individual whereas the principal defendant is a multi-billion
dollar corporation; thus, the “relative means” factor does not cut in favor of defendants.
Finally, if defendants truly believed that litigating this case in the Southern District would
be unnecessarily inconvenient, they would not have waited more than five months after they
were served with process to bring this motion.
In short, defendants have not carried their heavy burden to show that transfer to the
Northern District is appropriate.
Defendant’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED.
The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #30).
Dated: April 19, 2017
White Plains, NY
Vincent L. Briccetti
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?