Chan v. iSpot, Inc.

Background

Shameika Chan sued iSpot, Inc., seeking declaratory, injunctive, equitable, and monetary relief. She alleged discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on race, gender, and color under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Chan alleged that she was harassed while working as a senior marketing manager, complained to iSpot’s human-resources department, and was later terminated when iSpot moved its marketing organization from New York to its Washington headquarters.

iSpot moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the federal venue-transfer statute, to transfer the case to the Western District of Washington. The court stated that the moving party had to show by clear and convincing evidence that transfer would promote convenience and justice. The court treated the facts as true for purposes of deciding the motion.

Transfer Analysis

The court agreed that the case could have been brought in the Western District of Washington because iSpot is headquartered there, is subject to personal jurisdiction there, and venue would be proper there.

The court then weighed the relevant convenience factors. The witness-convenience factor was neutral because important witnesses were located in both Washington and New York, and the court could not determine that either forum was clearly more convenient. The convenience-of-the-parties factor favored transfer because iSpot is based in Washington and Chan does not reside in either Washington or New York. The location of the operative facts, the ability to compel unwilling witnesses, the location of documents, the parties’ relative means, and the courts’ familiarity with the governing law were neutral. Chan’s choice of the Southern District of New York weighed against transfer, but only to a limited degree. Trial efficiency and the interest of justice favored transfer because discovery had barely begun and much of the identified evidence and many witnesses were on the West Coast.

Ruling

Judge Ronnie Abrams concluded that two factors favored transfer, one factor weighed against transfer, and most factors were neutral. The court emphasized that the most important factor—witness convenience—did not clearly favor either forum. Because iSpot had not made the required clear and convincing showing that the balance of convenience favored transfer, the court denied the motion to transfer and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 13. The opinion ruled only on venue and did not decide the merits of Chan’s discrimination, harassment, or retaliation claims.