UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

-----------------------------------x 

: 

JOSEPH STEPHENS & COMPANY, INC., : 

 : 

 Petitioner, : 

 : 07 CV 3385 (BSJ) 

v. : 

: Order 

DAVID CIKANEK, : 

 : 

 Respondent. : 

: 

-----------------------------------x 

BARBARA S. JONES 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

INTRODUCTION 

Petitioner, Joseph Stephens & Co., Inc. (“Petitioner”), 

brings this petition pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10 to vacate an 

arbitration award rendered after a hearing conducted in Chicago, 

Illinois before the NASD. Respondent, David Cikanek 

(“Respondent”), moves to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, requests that this Court 

exercise its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 and transfer this 

action to the Northern District of Illinois. For the following 

reasons, Respondent’s motion to transfer is GRANTED. 

DISCUSSION 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer 

any civil action “[f]or the convenience of parties and 

witnesses, in the interest of justice” to “any other district or 

Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 29 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 1 of 5
2

division where it might have been brought.”1 When evaluating a 

motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a), courts in the Second 

Circuit consider numerous factors including: (1) the locus of 

the operative facts; (2) convenience of the parties; (3) the 

convenience of the witnesses; (4) the location of relevant 

documents and relative ease of proof; (5) the relative means of 

the parties; (6) the availability of process to compel 

attendance of unwilling witnesses; (7) a forum's familiarity 

with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded to plaintiff's 

choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of 

justice based on the totality of the circumstances. American 

Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Tala Bros. Corp., 457 F.Supp.2d 474, 

477 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The determination of whether a transfer is 

warranted lies within the broad discretion of the district 

court, and each factor need not be accorded equal weight. Id.

The locus of operative facts here is Chicago because that 

is where the arbitration hearing took place. Despite 

Petitioner’s contentions, even if the Court were to assume that 

this district was the location of the events giving rise to the 

arbitrated dispute, those events are not the focus here. In 

determining the merits of Petitioner’s claim, the only relevant 

facts for the Court will be what took place at the arbitration 

 

1 The parties do not dispute that this case could have been brought in the 

Northern District of Illinois.

Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 29 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 2 of 5
3

hearing, what the arbitrators did or did not do and whether the 

arbitrator’s actions warrant vacation. Here, Chicago is the 

location where those relevant facts transpired. Thus, this first 

factor weighs in favor of transferring this action. 

 “The core determination under § 1404(a) is the center of 

gravity of the litigation, a key test of which is the 

convenience of witnesses.” Viacom Intern., Inc. v. Melvin Simon 

Productions, Inc., 774 F.Supp. 858, 868 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). The 

Court notes that courts in this Circuit considering the proper 

venue for actions under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) 

have routinely found that the interests of justice and the 

convenience of all involved are best served by having the action 

heard in the forum where the arbitration took place. See, e.g. 

Alexander Ins. Ltd., 1991 WL 150224, at *2 (quoting United 

States Offshore, Inc. v. Seabulk Offshore, Ltd., 753 F.Supp. 86, 

89 (S.D.N.Y.1990))(“the location where an arbitration was held 

is presumptively the convenient forum for settling the 

dispute”); see also Motion Picture Lab. Technicians Local 780 v. 

McGregor & Werner, Inc., 804 F.2d 16, 18 (2d Cir.1986)(quoting 

Central Valley Typographical Union, No. 46 v. McClatchy 

Newspapers, 762 F.2d 741, 744 (9th Cir.1985))(“laying venue 

where the arbitration was held ... recognizes that the parties 

already have indicated that the location is mutually convenient 

to settle their dispute”). 

Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 29 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 3 of 5
4

Petitioner argues that the convenience of the parties and 

the witnesses is irrelevant because the arbitration award 

presents only issues of law which can be decided on the basis of 

the papers submitted. However, Respondent challenges the facts 

on which Petitioner predicates personal jurisdiction over him.2 

And these disputed facts make it likely that further discovery 

including depositions may be needed to decide the jurisdictional 

issues. This makes the convenience of the witnesses and the 

parties a relevant concern. Therefore, the second and third and 

factors weigh in favor of transferring this action. 

As stated above, the relative resources of the parties may 

also be an important consideration in determining whether to 

grant a motion to transfer. Here, Petitioner is an NASD 

registered broker and Respondent is a retired janitor who is in 

poor health and who resides in Chicago. Additionally, it is 

undisputed that Respondent lost a majority of his net worth in 

the securities market. Accordingly, the Court finds that the 

 

2

For example the following issues are in dispute: 1) Respondent challenges 

Petitioner’s assertion that Respondent filled out paperwork and transferred 

his account to Stevens; 2) Respondent disputes that he was involved in the 

transactions on his account, 3) the parties do not agree on the circumstances 

under which additional monies were sent to Petitioner to invest. Furthermore, 

the Court is unable to determine based on the record before it, the volume of 

trading that occurred on Respondent’s accounts and the circumstances under 

which Respondent’s account in Massachusetts was transferred to Petitioner in 

New York. It is likely that these circumstances are important to the Court’s 

analysis of whether long arm jurisdiction exists and to the determination of 

whether or not Respondent can be said to have purposefully availed himself of 

the privilege of conducting activities in New York. 

Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 29 Filed 01/25/2008 Page 4 of 5