United States District Court, S.D. New York
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
VINCENT L. BRICCETTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Mark Karam brings this employment discrimination action
against his current employer, the New York Power Authority
(“NYPA”), and three fellow NYPA employees.
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).
reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.
Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1367(a).
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 quasi-governmental
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
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
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
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 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).
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. 2010).
To Transfer ...