This factor is neutral, considering the location of all the important identified witnesses. Although defendants argue that two key witnesses, Andrus and Positerry, reside near the Western District of Louisiana, see Mem. in Supp. 5, “they do not identify any [witness] who would be unwilling or unable to appear in the present action,” Sadat v. State Univ. of N.Y. Upstate Med. Univ., No. 19-CV-5053 (JMF), 2019 WL 4511555, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2019). Andrus opposes transfer and is willing to fully participate as a witness in this forum, Andrus Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4, and Positerry, as defendants' employee, is “presumed to be amenable to appearing in a foreign forum on [her] employer's behalf,” Fisher, 2024 WL 3771781, at *12 (citation omitted); see also,e.g., Pecorino v. Vutec Corp., 934 F.Supp.2d 422, 436-37 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (noting that inconvenience to a party's employee “does not weigh as heavily as inconvenience to non-party witnesses”).
(alterations adopted) (quoting MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 20-CV-3478, 2020 WL 6075528, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2020)); see also New York Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 114 (2d Cir. 2010) (same); Sadat v. State Univ. of New York Upstate Med. Univ., No. 19-CV-5053, 2019 WL 4511555, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2019) (same). The party moving for a § 1404 transfer bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that a plaintiff's choice of forum should be set aside.
Upon consideration of the parties' briefing and the relevant factors, the Court concludes that convenience and the interests of justice favor transfer. See, e.g., Ucarer v. Ala Turk, Inc., No. 19-CV-5943 (JMF), 2020 WL 7028868, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2020); see also, e.g., Sadat v. State Univ. of N.Y. Upstate Med. Univ., No. 19-CV-5053 (JMF), 2019 WL 4511555, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2019) (listing nine non-exhaustive factors to consider in evaluating whether a case should be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). Plaintiffs object on three grounds: (1) that “[t]his Court is [their] choice of forum”; (2) that “Defendants' witnesses are expected to be located in the State of New York”; and (3) that “[their] counsels are located in New York.”
When considering a transfer motion under Section 1404(a), the Court must first determine whether venue is proper in the transferee district, and if it is, decide whether convenience and the interests of justice favor transfer. See, e.g., Sadat v. State Univ. of N.Y. Upstate Med. Univ., No. 19-CV-5053 (JMF), 2019 WL 4511555, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2019); see also, e.g., Albert Fadem Tr. v. Duke Energy Corp., 214 F. Supp. 2d 341, 343 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (listing nine non-exhaustive factors to consider under the transfer standard). Here, because Ala Turk maintains its principal place of business in the Eastern District, see ECF No. 52-1, at 59, and the Individual Defendants are all residents of New York State, see ECF Nos. 53, 58, 59, venue would also be proper in the Eastern District of New York.
When considering a transfer motion, the Court must first determine whether venue is proper in the transferee district, and if it is, decide whether convenience and the interests of justice favor transfer. See, e.g., Sadat v. State Univ. of N.Y. Upstate Med. Univ., No. 19-CV-5053 (JMF), 2019 WL 4511555, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2019); see also e.g., Albert Fadem Tr. v. Duke Energy Corp., 214 F. Supp. 2d 341, 343 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (listing nine non-exhaustive factors to consider under the transfer standard). Here, there is no dispute that venue would be proper in the Northern District of Ohio, where Defendant is based and the products at issue are manufactured and labeled.