NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JEFFERY STRINGFIELD,

Plaintiff, 

v.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

and HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY

SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 11-01829 (SRC)

OPINION

CHESLER, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Honeywell International, Inc.’s and

Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to transfer venue

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [docket entry 8]. Plaintiff Jeffery Stringfield (“Plaintiff”) has

opposed the motion. The Court has opted to rule based on the papers submitted and without oral

argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons expressed below, the

Court will grant Defendants’ motion and will transfer this action to the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, a Florida citizen, is a former employee of Defendant Honeywell Technology

Solutions, Inc. (“HTSI”), a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Maryland

Case 2:11-cv-01829-SRC-MAS Document 27 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 475
and corporate offices in Virginia. HTSI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Honeywell

International, Inc., also a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in New

Jersey. During his employment within HTSI’s Logistics segment, Plaintiff worked overseas as a

Program Manager in Iraq under an “Army Field Support Brigade - Iraq” government contract

between HTSI and the United States Army (“AFSB Contract”). According to Plaintiff, during

his tenure as Program Manager, he became aware of various fraudulent and illegal practices

conducted by HTSI which he reported to HTSI management and human resources personnel. 

First, Plaintiff complained that HTSI was illegally charging labor hours to the government for

four employees on the AFSB Contract who were not actively employed. Second, Plaintiff

reported that a newly-hired HTSI employee was issued a military vehicle in violation of the terms

of the AFSB Contract, military driving requirements, and HTSI’s vehicle standard operating

procedures. 

Subsequently, on May 29, 2010, in a hotel conference room in Kuwait City, Kuwait,

Plaintiff was terminated from employment with HTSI. According to HTSI, Plaintiff was fired

because of “increasingly problematic performance deficiencies.” (Defs.’ Mot. to Transfer at 8,

Apr. 21, 2011.) Plaintiff, however, contends that he was terminated in retaliation for his

whistleblowing activities, in violation of the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”). 

On or about March 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in New Jersey state

court, adding HTSI as a defendant and asserting a federal claim under the False Claims Act, 31

U.S.C. § 3730(h). Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal question

jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and shortly thereafter filed the instant motion to transfer venue to

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 

2

Case 2:11-cv-01829-SRC-MAS Document 27 Filed 06/29/11 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 476
II. DISCUSSION

In federal court, transfer of venue is governed by two statutes: 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and 28

U.S.C. § 1406. “Section 1404(a) provides for the transfer of a case where both the original and

the requested venue are proper. Section 1406, on the other hand, applies where the original

venue is improper and provides for either transfer or dismissal of the case.” Jumara v. State

Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir.1995). In this case, Defendants move to transfer

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). That provision states: “For the convenience of parties and

witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other

district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Defendants contend

and Plaintiff concedes that this action “may have been brought” in the Eastern District of

Virginia. (Defs.’ Mot. to Transfer at 15-17; Pl.’s Opp’n Br. at 13, June 6, 2011.) Therefore, the

Court must determine whether Defendants have established that the Eastern District of Virginia

is the more appropriate and convenient forum to hear this matter. 

The party moving for a transfer of venue bears the burden of demonstrating that the

balance of private and public factors weighs strongly in favor of transfer. Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert,

330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947); Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. “The burden is not on the plaintiff to show

that the proposed alternative forum is inadequate. On the contrary, the burden is on the moving

party to show the proposed alternate forum is not only adequate but also more convenient than

the present forum.” Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Honeywell, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 473, 480 (D.N.J.1993)

(citations omitted). 

The Third Circuit has held that “[s]ection 1404(a) transfers are discretionary

determinations made for the convenience of the parties and presuppose that the court has

3

Case 2:11-cv-01829-SRC-MAS Document 27 Filed 06/29/11 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 477
jurisdiction and that the case has been brought in the correct forum.” Lafferty v. St. Riel, 495

F.3d 72, 76-77 (3d Cir. 2007). In exercising its discretion, the transferor court must evaluate

whether a venue transfer would further the goals of § 1404(a), which are “to prevent the waste of

time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary

inconvenience and expense . . . .” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964). This

evaluation calls for this Court to balance various private and public interests related to the

transfer. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. In Jumara, the Third Circuit provided a list of factors a district

court should consider. The private interest factors are: (1) plaintiff’s forum preference as

manifested in the original choice; (2) the defendant’s preference; (3) whether the claim arose

elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial

condition; (5) the convenience of the witnesses; and (6) the location of books and records. Id. 

The public interest factors are: (1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical considerations

that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; (3) the relative administrative

difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; (4) the local interest in deciding local

controversies at home; (5) the public policies of the fora; and (6) the familiarity of the trial judge

with the applicable state law in diversity cases. Id. at 879-80.

 The balance of Jumara’s private and public interest factors weigh in favor of transfer in

this case. The first and second private factors, which consider the parties’ forum preference, are

neutral since Plaintiff prefers New Jersey while Defendants prefer Virginia. In considering a

1404(a) motion to transfer, great weight should typically be given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. 

See Lony v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 886 F.2d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1989). However, in this

case, Plaintiff’s choice is accorded less deference because, as a Florida resident, he has selected a

4

Case 2:11-cv-01829-SRC-MAS Document 27 Filed 06/29/11 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 478
foreign forum. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 256 (1981) (holding that when the

plaintiff is foreign, the assumption that his choice is convenient is much less reasonable,

warranting less deference to his choice). Plaintiff’s choice is also afforded less deference in this

case because the central underlying facts comprising his claim occurred outside his chosen forum

of New Jersey. See Wm. H. McGee & Co. v. United Arab Shipping Co., 6 F. Supp. 2d 283, 290

(D.N.J. 1997) quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (holding that deference

is curbed when a plaintiff’s choice of forum has little connection with the operative facts of the

lawsuit). The dispute in the instant matter centers upon whether Plaintiff was fired in retaliation

for his complaints regarding HTSI’s practices; a claim arising from HTSI’s conduct and

Plaintiff’s whistleblowing in Iraq, and HTSI’s decision to fire Plaintiff which was made in

Virginia and Maryland. In fact, Plaintiff does not allege that any affirmative wrongdoing

occurred in New Jersey. Because Defendants have demonstrated that the operative facts to this

litigation are not centered in New Jersey and because New Jersey is a foreign forum, Plaintiff’s

choice is entitled to less deference, rendering the first two factors neutral. 

Moving on to the third factor, it appears from the facts presented to the Court that the

FCA claim arose in Virginia and Maryland. The “locus of the alleged culpable conduct”

determines the place where the claim arose and Plaintiff’s unlawful termination charge is based

on the decision to fire him that was made by HTSI employees in Virginia and Maryland. See

Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 529 (1988). As such, the third factor favors Virginia

over New Jersey. The fourth factor, which considers the convenience of the parties as indicated

by their relative physical and financial conditions constitutes a neutral factor since the

Defendants are located in New Jersey and Virginia and their financial conditions permit them to

5

Case 2:11-cv-01829-SRC-MAS Document 27 Filed 06/29/11 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 479
litigate in either state.

As for the convenience of the witnesses, the Court finds that it favors transfer. 

Defendants have shown that proceeding in New Jersey is likely to result in serious inconvenience

for witnesses who will be unable or unavailable to testify in this forum. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at

879 (noting that convenience of witnesses is a factor to be considered “only to the extent that the

witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora.”). Defendants identify various

key witnesses who reside in Virginia, Maryland, and California and are not under the control of

the parties to this action and/or subject to the subpoena power of the Court. In addition, Plaintiff

has not submitted the name of one non-party witness who resides or works in New Jersey. 

Finally, the location of books and records is of no particular significance to this venue transfer

analysis because, while the majority of the relevant records are located in Virginia, Defendants

have presented no evidence that they could not be produced in the alternate forum. See id.

(noting that the location of books and records is a factor to be considered only “to the extent that

the files could not be produced in the alternative forum.”). 

Turning to the public factors, the Court concludes that they favor transfer. Most of the

factors - enforceability of judgment, relative administrative difficulty, fora’s public policy and

familiarity of trial judge with applicable state law - bear no significance in the analysis. Practical

considerations, however, favor Virginia over New Jersey as the majority of the witnesses and

records are located in Virginia and nearby Maryland. As for the interest in deciding local

controversies, both states have a concern in resolving disputes involving one of their home-state

businesses. 

Thus, on balance, the Court finds that Defendants have shown that the relevant private

6

Case 2:11-cv-01829-SRC-MAS Document 27 Filed 06/29/11 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 480
and public factors weigh in favor of transfer. Defendants, in short, have successfully carried the

burden of demonstrating that the proposed alternative forum is more convenient than the one

chosen by Plaintiff. Accordingly, this action will be transferred to the Eastern District of

Virginia.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court in its discretion grants Defendants’ motion to

transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). An appropriate form of Order will be filed. 

 s/ Stanley R. Chesler 

 STANLEY R. CHESLER.

 United States District Judge

DATED: June 29, 2011 

7

Case 2:11-cv-01829-SRC-MAS Document 27 Filed 06/29/11 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 481