Fteja v. Facebook, Inc. - 841 F. Supp. 2d 829 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)

Rule:

Among the factors to be considered in determining whether to grant a motion to transfer venue are, inter alia: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the convenience of witnesses, (3) the location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the convenience of parties, (5) the locus of operative facts, (6) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, and (7) the relative means of the parties. The convenience of the forum for witnesses is probably considered the single most important factor in the analysis of whether a transfer should be granted. In addition, because a court's discretion to transfer an action must be exercised at the very outset of the case, when relatively little is known about how the case will develop, courts have typically accorded substantial weight to the plaintiff's choice of forum.

Facts:

Plaintiff Mustafa Fteja, a resident of Staten Island, New York, filed the present action in New York Supreme Court in New York County, alleging that defendant Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook"), the social networking website, disabled his Facebook account without justification and for discriminatory reasons. Non-party Dimitrios Fatouros has moved to join the action. Facebook opposed hat motion and has moved to transfer this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the alternative, Facebook moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e).

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could the action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court noted that a court electing to transfer an action, may only transfer such action 'to a district where it might have been brought initially,' (i.e., a district where defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction and venue would be proper). In this case, the court found that the Northern District of California would have subject matter jurisdiction over this action on the basis of the parties' diversity of citizenship. And that court would have personal jurisdiction over Facebook because the presence of Facebook's headquarters in Palo Alto suggested that Facebook has had "continuous and systematic general business contacts" with California. Moreover, Facebook had shown that the transfer would advance the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as the interests of justice.