Cruz v. Next Stop 2006, Inc.

Background

Twenty former employees of Next Stop 2006, Inc. sued Next Stop 2006, Chaim Littman, Carolina Littman, Abivad, LLC, and Joshua Bernstein. The amended complaint asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiffs alleged that they were not paid the required minimum wage, were paid a day rate instead of the required hourly rate, were not paid overtime, and were discriminated against because of their perceived immigrant status.

Next Stop 2006 is based in New Jersey, with its warehouse in Clifton and its only office in Fair Lawn. Abivad’s office is in Teaneck, New Jersey. The opinion states that all Plaintiffs are New Jersey residents and that the individual defendants are also New Jersey residents. Plaintiffs alleged that much of their work occurred in New York. Defendants disputed that account and submitted evidence asserting that Plaintiffs spent more time working in New Jersey.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey. The court evaluated the transfer request under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits a court to transfer a case to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.

Transfer Analysis

The court determined that the case could have originally been brought in the District of New Jersey because all Defendants were New Jersey residents for venue purposes. It gave little weight to Plaintiffs’ choice of the Southern District of New York because Plaintiffs alleged that they all resided in New Jersey rather than New York.

The convenience of the parties and witnesses favored transfer. The court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ testimony would be important to the wage-and-hour and employment-discrimination claims, and that Defendants’ offices, warehouse, and other potential employee witnesses were in New Jersey. The court acknowledged that Defendants’ New York customers might be potential nonparty witnesses, but concluded that those witnesses did not outweigh the numerous party witnesses and employees located in New Jersey.

The location of the operative facts also favored transfer. Although the parties disputed where most of the work occurred, they agreed that Plaintiffs’ workdays generally began and ended in New Jersey and that Defendants’ offices and warehouse were there. The court found that undisputed facts concerning contracting, a significant portion of the work, wage-and-hour recordkeeping, and many interactions relevant to the discrimination claims pointed to New Jersey. The location of relevant documents and access to evidence also favored transfer, although the court considered that factor less significant. The parties’ relative financial means and the ability to compel unwilling witnesses were neutral because neither side provided sufficient information on those issues.

Ruling

On balance, the court concluded that transferring the case to New Jersey was in the interests of justice. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted Defendants’ motions to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Because it granted the transfer motions, the court declined to rule on Defendants’ motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c). The opinion states that the District of New Jersey could decide those motions or request new briefing. The court expressly did not resolve the parties’ disputes about where most of the work occurred or whether New Jersey or New York law applied. The Clerk was directed to transfer the action to the District of New Jersey and terminate all pending motions, deadlines, and hearings.