Bredder v. City of New York

Background

Matthew Bredder sued the City of New York, NYPD Captain Julio Delgado, NYPD Officer Justin Schivek, and NYPD Members John and Jane Does 1–6. His complaint asserted claims involving unlawful seizure or false arrest, excessive force, alleged violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the rule governing municipal liability, and New York constitutional and common-law claims.

The defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The parties agreed that the case could properly have been brought in the Eastern District. The dispute was whether the convenience and interests-of-justice factors justified moving it.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered the usual transfer factors. It found the witness-convenience factor neutral because neither side identified specific non-party witnesses, their locations, or the subjects of their testimony. The convenience-of-the-parties factor weighed against transfer because Bredder lived in Manhattan, the individual defendants were assigned to commands in the Southern District, and the defendants conceded that appearing in Manhattan would not be inconvenient for Bredder, the officer defendant, or witnesses.

The location of documents and ease of access to evidence were neutral. Although the defendants argued that relevant documents were in Brooklyn because Bredder was arrested and processed there, the court noted that the two courthouses were close to each other and that relevant records would likely be electronic. The location of the events weighed in favor of transfer because the protest, arrest, and processing occurred in the Eastern District. The availability of subpoenas, the parties’ relative financial means, familiarity with the governing law, and trial efficiency and the interests of justice were neutral.

Bredder’s choice of the Southern District weighed against transfer. The court gave that choice substantial weight because Bredder lived there and the case was filed there. The court also rejected the defendants’ concern that allowing the case to remain would encourage the filing of civil-rights cases against New York City or its agencies in the Southern District, finding that the defendants had not shown that this case presented that risk or that Bredder was improperly choosing the forum.

Disposition

The court concluded that most factors were neutral and that the location of the underlying events, although favoring transfer, was not enough by itself. Because the defendants did not make the required clear and convincing showing that transfer was proper, Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the defendants’ motion to transfer. The opinion did not resolve the merits of Bredder’s underlying claims.