Algood Casters Limited v. Caster Concepts, Inc.

Background

Algood Casters Limited sued Caster Concepts, Inc. in the Southern District of New York. The opinion identifies Algood as a Canadian corporation and Caster Concepts as a Michigan corporation. The parties agreed that the court had jurisdiction because Caster Concepts markets and sells products in New York.

Motion to Transfer

Caster Concepts moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to transfer the case to the Western District of Michigan. That statute permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice when the case could have been brought in the proposed district.

Caster Concepts argued that litigating in New York would unnecessarily inconvenience it because its offices are in Michigan and the conduct giving rise to the alleged infringement occurred there. It also argued that the case had no particular connection to New York because less than 1% of its sales were made there.

Algood opposed transfer. It argued that New York would be more convenient because its witnesses could travel from Toronto to New York more easily than to Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that a plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to deference and that transfer is appropriate only when convenience strongly favors another forum. Transfer should not merely shift the inconvenience from one party to the other.

The court found that Algood had chosen New York and had provided valid reasons for preferring that forum. Although Michigan would be more convenient for Caster Concepts, transferring the case would make the litigation more difficult for Algood’s witnesses. The court also noted that the COVID-19 pandemic made in-person hearings unlikely in the near future, reducing the burden on Caster Concepts of litigating in New York.

The court further concluded that Caster Concepts’ limited New York business activity did not, by itself, require a venue change. The court had jurisdiction based on those business activities, and the limited volume of New York business did not show that convenience strongly favored Michigan. The court also rejected the idea that a domestic defendant is entitled to litigate in its home district when the plaintiff has no home district in the United States.

Disposition

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied Caster Concepts’ motion to transfer venue. The case therefore remained in the Southern District of New York. The order addressed venue and convenience, not the merits of the alleged infringement.