UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

____________________________________

:

SALANDSTACY CORP., ET AL., :

:

Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No. 11-3439 (JLL)

:

v. :

:

DWIGHT FREENEY, ET AL., : OPINION

:

Defendants. :

____________________________________:

HAMMER, United States Magistrate Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is a motion by Defendant Roof Group LLC (“Roof Group”) to transfer

this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1404(a). Defendant Eva Weinberg has joined Roof Group’s motion. ECF No. 108. 

Plaintiffs Salandstacy Corp., Salvatore Feli, and Stacy Feli oppose the motion. Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, the Undersigned did not hear oral argument. For the reasons

set forth below, the Court will grant the motion to transfer and order that this matter be

transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Only the facts relevant to Roof Group’s motion to transfer are set forth herein. These

facts are based on the allegations in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. This action involves a

contract between Plaintiffs and Roof Group for the management of a restaurant in Los Angeles

and the demise of the business relationship between the parties. Freeney and West met with

1

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1702
Salvatore and Stacy Feli (the “Felis”) to discuss opening a restaurant in Los Angeles,

California—the Rolling Stone Los Angeles (“RSLA”). Amended Compl. at ¶ 28 (ECF No. 52). 

In April 2010, Freeney allegedly told the Felis that he would supply some of the financial

backing for the restaurant and wanted them to help manage the RSLA. Id. at ¶ 30. The parties 

met on April 7, 2010, in New York City to discuss the particulars of the arrangement. Id. at ¶ 31. 

Then the Felis traveled to Miami, Florida to meet with David Stern, another alleged financial

backer of RSLA. Id. at ¶ 34. Next, the Plaintiffs met with Defendants and executives for 1

Rolling Stone regarding licensing and legal issues in New York City. Id. at ¶ 35. After these

meetings—during which, according to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, a number of false statements were

made—the Felis agreed to relocate to Los Angeles, California to manage the RSLA. Id. at ¶ 38. 

The Felis hoped that eventually they could return to the northeast and open a New York location. 

Id. In May, Mr. Feli signed a Term Sheet purportedly with Roof Group. See ECF No. 61-1

(Term Sheet between SalandStacy Cor. and Roof, LLC – May 13, 2010). But as the restaurant

was beginning, issues with funding allegedly arose and Plaintiffs were terminated on December

22, 2010. In addition to the funding issues, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants hired a consulting

group, Krost, Baumgarten, Kniss, & Guerrero, Inc. (“KBKG”) to help oversee the opening of 2

 Mr. Stern is also known as Michael Stern and David Millar. He was charged in the 1

Central District of California with conspiracy and wire fraud related to the theft of over $2

million from Freeney and Roof Group and currently incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention

Center in Los Angeles because of these charges. Declaration of David Kettel in support of Def.

Mot. (“Kettel Decl.”), ¶¶ 3, 4 (ECF No. 103). Similarly, Eva Weinberg is another named

defendant who allegedly served as Freeney’s financial advisor. Amended Compl. at ¶ 16. She

has been criminally charged and her travel is restricted to the Central District of California and

the Southern District of Florida, where she has family. Kettel Decl. ¶ 6. 

 In addition to KBKG itself, Gregg Kniss (a principal shareholder of KBKG) and Jean 2

(continued...)

2

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 2 of 14 PageID: 1703
RSLA. Plaintiffs also allege that the KBKG Defendants, who are located in Pasadena,

California, improperly influenced Roof Group to break their contract with Plaintiffs and hire

different managers. It is unclear from the Amended Complaint whether Plaintiffs allege that

their agreement with Roof Group ultimately failed due to lack of funding or to the influence of

KBKG. In any event, central to the underlying dispute is that the Felis were not retained past

December 2010 to manage the RSLA. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs originally filed this lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Essex

County. Defendants removed the matter to this Court on June 14, 2011, and filed a motion to

dismiss, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on March 21, 2012. (March 21, 2012

Order, ECF No. 43). On May 4, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 52). 

Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 61). The Court granted

Defendants’ motion and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims (1) for fraud as against Roof Group,

Freeney, and West (Count Two); (2) for breach of fiduciary duty as against Roof Group, Freeney,

and West (Count Three); and (3) seeking an accounting as against Roof Group (Count Four) with

prejudice. (August 22, 2012 Order, ECF No. 96). Besides those claims against Stern, the only 3

claims that remain are Plaintiffs’ breach-of-contract claim against Roof Group and their tortious-

(...continued) 2

Kniss (an employee of KBKG) are also named defendants (collectively “KBKG Defendants”). 

These defendants have not joined this motion or stated any position on it one way or the other. 

 Counts two and three against Defendant Stern remain, but he has not responded to the 3

Complaint or to the motions in this matter. Stern is currently incarcerated and his counsel has

filed a motion to withdraw. In addition, the KBKG Defendants have sought reconsideration of

the Court’s finding that it has personal jurisdiction over them. ECF No. 101. That motion is still

pending. 

3

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 3 of 14 PageID: 1704
interference claim against Weinberg and the KBKG Defendants. 

Roof Group now seeks to transfer this matter to the Central District of California under

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Defendants Roof Group, West, and Freeney had filed counterclaims against

Plaintiffs, but requested leave to voluntarily dismiss their counterclaims without prejudice, which

Judge Linares granted on October 9, 2012. (ECF No. 122). 

This motion is now brought only by Roof Group. Weinberg has filed a letter stating that

she joins in the motion. (September 18, 2012 Letter, ECF No, 108). Stern and the KBKG

Defendants have not joined nor stated any position regarding the motion to transfer. Plaintiffs

have opposed the motion. (ECF No. 114). 

IV. DISCUSSION

Section 1404(a) vests a district court with discretion “to adjudicate motions to transfer

according to an individualized, case by case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart

Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 23 (1998) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376

U.S. 612, 616 (1964)). Specifically, § 1404(a) provides: “for the convenience of parties and

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

district ... where it might have been brought.” 

The purpose of § 1404(a) is to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against

unnecessary inconvenience and expense. Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 616. Courts are not limited to

only these factors, however, and should consider “all relevant factors to determine whether on

balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interest of justice be better

served by transfer to a different forum.” Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir.

1995); see also Clark v. Burger King Corp., 255 F. Supp. 2d 334, 337 (D.N.J. 2003). This

4

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 4 of 14 PageID: 1705
standard creates an analysis that “is flexible” with decisions being made based “on the unique

facts of each case.” Calkins v. Dollarland, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 421, 428 (D.N.J. 2000) (citing

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1981)). The burden of establishing the need

for transfer rests on the moving party, in this case Roof Group. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. 

The Third Circuit has listed the public and private interest factors to be weighed when

considering a motion to transfer:

The private interests have included: plaintiff’s forum preference as manifested in the

original choice; the defendant’s preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the

convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial

condition; the convenience of the witnesses–but only to the extent that the witnesses

may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and the location of books and

records (similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the

alternative forum).

The public interests have included: the enforceability of the judgment; practical

considerations that couldmake the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the relative

administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; the local

interest in deciding local controversies at home; the public policies of the fora; and

the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.

Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879 (internal citations omitted). 

A. Propriety of Venue in Transferee District

The first step in a court’s analysis of a motion to transfer is to determine whether venue

would be proper in the proposed transferee district. Clark, 225 F. Supp. 2d at 337. Section 1391(a)

of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that a civil action may be brought in 

(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same

State, 

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action

is situated, or 

5

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 5 of 14 PageID: 1706
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the

time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may

otherwise be brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Although most defendants reside in California, Dwight Freeney is a resident of Indiana. 

ECF No. 134. Nevertheless, under § 1391(b)(2), a substantial part of the events occurred in 4

Central District of California. This matter centers around the Plaintiffs’ management of a

restaurant in Los Angeles and contractual duties related to that management. It was the eventual

failure of that contract and the business relationship between Plaintiffs and Roof Group that gave

rise to this action. Plaintiffs moved to and expected to live in Los Angeles to manage the RSLA,

which is also in Los Angeles. The contract was negotiated at various locations, but all efforts

focused on events located in or around Los Angeles. Therefore, under § 1391(b)(2), the Central

District of California has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Moreover, Plaintiffs do not

dispute that venue could properly be laid in the Central District of California. Pl. Opp. at 5

(“[T]he Central District of California may be one of the possible venues for this action. . . .”). 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that venue lies in the Central District of California.

 

 The citizenship of the parties was not properly pled by Defendants in their removal 4

papers or by Plaintiffs in their original state complaint or their amended complaint. The Court

entered an Order to Show Cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction and directing the parties to submit declarations regarding whether there is

diversity of citizenship. October 15, 2012 Order (ECF No. 125). The parties timely complied

with the Court’s order and have set forth sufficient factual allegations to satisfy the Court that

there is indeed diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants. In addition, the amount

of controversy is well in excess of $75,000. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that it has subject

matter jurisdiction and has withdrawn the Order to Show Cause. 

6

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 6 of 14 PageID: 1707
B. Private Interest Factors

The Court must next evaluate whether the transfer is in the interest of justice and “must

consider both the private and public interests effected by the transfer.” Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879;

see also Gulf Oil v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1946) (evaluating private and public interest

factors effected by transfer). 

1. Where the Claims Arose 

In the instant motion, the parties vigorously dispute where the claims arose. Plaintiffs

argue that the center of gravity is here in New Jersey, while Roof Group argues it is in California. 

This issue is central to deciding this motion and implicates several of the factors. Accordingly,

the Court addresses this fact first. 

Plaintiffs point to several facts to connect their action to New Jersey: (1) the contract was

signed in New Jersey (although Plaintiffs fail to allege so in the Complaint); (2) Defendants

directed some communications into New Jersey; (3) Plaintiffs resided in New Jersey for a few

months while doing work for Roof Group; and (4) Plaintiffs eventually planned to return to the

Northeast to open a second restaurant in New York. Roof Group argues that (1) any contract

between the parties was directed at Los Angeles; (2) the RSLA, which Plaintiffs were to manage,

was located in Los Angeles; and (3) all facts relevant to the dispute itself—the termination of any

agreement between the parties—occurred in the Central District of California. 

The Court determines where the claims arose by inquiring into where the allegedly

culpable conduct occurred. “The ‘locus of the alleged culpable conduct’ determines the place

where the claim arose.” Allied Old English, Inc. v. Uwajimaya, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

116261, at *10-11 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2012) (quoting Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517,

7

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 7 of 14 PageID: 1708
529 (1988)). The facts central to this dispute concern the terms of a “contract” between Plaintiffs

and Roof Group LLC and the events leading to its alleged breach and the deterioration of the

their business relationship. The contract at issue is actually a two-page term sheet that apparently

was intended to be memorialized into a more formal agreement, although it never was. Ex. A to

Def. Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 61-1). It states that “Roof, LLC” is a California limited liability

company, and owns and operates the Rolling Stone Los Angeles, in Los Angeles, California. Id. 

It further states that Plaintiffs entered into a “Management Services agreement” to manage and

operate the restaurant. Id. The entirety of the dispute is centered around Plaintiffs’ management

of RSLA. The contract was directed towards the Plaintiffs’ managing the RSLA in California. 

The restaurant was in Los Angeles, Roof Group was in Los Angeles, Plaintiffs moved to Los

Angeles, and Plaintiffs’ management responsibilities were centered in Los Angeles. 

Even more important, the deterioration of the parties’ business relationship and the

alleged breach of the contract all involve conduct occurring in California. As stated before,

Plaintiffs posit two theories to explain the break down of their relationship with Roof Group

broke down. The first theory is that funds did not materialize as promised. These allegations are

centered around Stern’s activities by himself and in connection with his partner Weinberg. Both

Stern and Weinberg are now charged with federal crimes—in the Central District of

California—relating to their alleged mishandling of funds for Roof Group. If there was any

impropriety by either Stern or Weinberg, it likely occurred in the Central District of California. 

Nothing in the record before this Court suggests that either Stern or Weinberg have any

affiliation with or connection to New Jersey, much less that their conduct relevant to this

litigation occurred in or affect New Jersey. As part of this theory, Plaintiffs argue that a number

8

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 8 of 14 PageID: 1709
of false statements were made during contract negotiations. But nowhere do Plaintiffs allege that

any significant negotiation occurred in New Jersey. Rather, according to their Amended

Complaint, it occurred in New York and Florida, and perhaps California. 

Plaintiffs’ second theory is that the KBKG Defendants interfered with the contract by

convincing Roof Group to fire Plaintiffs and find different managers. This theory also would

necessarily involve conduct occurring in the Central District of California, wherein KBKG is

located and from which it provides consulting services. Therefore, the locus of the alleged

culpable conduct is in the Central District of California. 

Plaintiffs invoke a number of connections to New Jersey, including that the contract was

signed in New Jersey, and that Plaintiffs resided in New Jersey while providing initial support for

RSLA. However, those facts alone are not dispositive. The contract and all of Plaintiffs’ efforts

were directed to Los Angeles. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ suggestion that the contract contemplated

the Plaintiffs returning to New Jersey is error. Instead, the contract provides that should Roof

Group decide to open a New York location, the Plaintiffs could manage it. ECF 61-1 at 2. 

Besides being only a mere prospect based entirely on Roof Group’s choice, nowhere does the

contract mention New Jersey—it concerns New York. Perhaps the Plaintiffs intended to live in 5

New Jersey and commute if they had the opportunity to manage the restaurant, but that is not

called for in the contract and is irrelevant to the parties’ dispute. 

 Plaintiffs make a number of contentions that ultimately do not withstand scrutiny. For 5

example, they state that “[u]nder the agreement, Plaintiffs were to initially provide services

within New Jersey.” Pl. Opp. at 8; id. at 9(“[A] substantial portion of the services under the

agreement in question were performed and to be performed in New Jersey.”). The Court has

reviewed the alleged contract and finds no such provision. Plaintiffs may have chosen to do

some work from New Jersey, but the contract did not require or contemplate it. 

9

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 9 of 14 PageID: 1710
Roof Group relies on Santi v. Nat’l Bus. Records Mgmt., 722 F. Supp. 2d 602 (D.N.J.

2010), which the Court finds persuasive. There plaintiff was employed and then terminated by a

company in Pennsylvania and brought suit based on his termination in the District of New Jersey. 

The court transferred the matter to Pennsylvania, explaining that the plaintiff’s status as a

resident of New Jersey was not enough to connect the matter to this forum:

Here, Santi filed his Complaint in New Jersey because he currently resides in

Sewell, New Jersey. However, the action is based on operative facts that bear

little connection to New Jersey. Santi was employed in Pennsylvania (granted,

only for three days), he reported to supervisors located in Pennsylvania, and was

terminated in Pennsylvania. No acts related to the alleged discrimination occurred

in New Jersey. 

Id. at 607. The Felis were employed in Los Angeles, the RSLA was located in Los Angeles, and

the Felis contract was terminated in Los Angeles. No acts related to the alleged breach of the

parties’ contract or termination of their relationship occurred in New Jersey.

None of the cases cited by Plaintiff is persuasive or on point. For example, in Business

Store, Inc. v. Mail Boxes Etc., No. 11-3662, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19381, at *22 (D.N.J. Feb.

16, 2012), the court found that the claims arose in New Jersey because the contract was

negotiated, executed, performed in New Jersey, and concerned a franchise business located in

New Jersey. See also Calkins v. Dollarland, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 421, 423 (D.N.J. 2000)

(“[B]ecause a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claim arose in New Jersey,

the Court will deny defendants’ motion to transfer venue.”); Market Transition Facility v. Twena,

941 F. Supp. 462, 467 (D.N.J. 1996) (“New Jersey has a considerable nexus with this case since

a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in New Jersey.”). In those cases,

the conduct underlying the claims occurred principally in New Jersey. In this case, as explained

10

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 10 of 14 PageID: 1711
above, the contract contemplated performance principally in the Central District of California,

and the core conduct underlying the claims occurred in the Central District of California. 

2. Plaintiff’s Forum Preference

Ordinarily, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is a “paramount consideration” and should not be

“lightly disturbed.” Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Nevertheless, Plaintiff’s choice is not given dispositive weight. Delta

Airlines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.P.A., et al.,619 F.3d 288, 295-96 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Piper Aircraft

Co. v. Reno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 n.23 (1981)); Moreover, a plaintiff’s preference deserves

“significantly less weight” when the operative facts did not occur in the same jurisdiction. Id.;

Frato v. Swing Staging, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91754 (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2011) (“But courts

in this District often give less weight to a plaintiff's forum choice when the dispute at the heart of

a lawsuit occurred almost entirely in another state.”). In this case, because the Court has found

that the operative facts occurred in Los Angeles, Plaintiffs’ preference should not be given great

weight.

3. Roof Group’s Forum Preference

Roof Group prefers to litigate this matter in the Central District of California, which is

where the operative facts occurred. As such, Roof Group’s forum preference is entitled to some

weight. 

4. Convenience of the Witnesses

Few, if any, party witnesses are located in New Jersey. The Plaintiffs reside in New

Jersey, but have also spent considerable time in California. Many defendants are in California:

Roof Group, KBKG, Stern, Weinberg, and most likely Kniss and Hagen. Most, if not all, non11

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 11 of 14 PageID: 1712
party witnesses are likely located in California as well. Kettel Decl. ¶ 12. Freeney, who is no

longer a party to the matter, resides in Indianapolis, but has significant connections with Los

Angeles as he is an owner of the RSLA. West is a resident of California. Of particular note, the

Central District of California is the only forum where currently all defendants may be present

during the litigation. As stated before, Stern is currently incarcerated in the Los Angeles area and

Weinberg is unable to travel to New Jersey because of her bail conditions. On the other hand, 6

any inconvenience Plaintiffs face is not significantly increased considering that Plaintiffs had

relocated to Los Angeles. On balance, this factor favors transfer. 

4. Location of Books and Records 

This factor is considered by courts only to the extent that files could not be produced in

the alternative forum. In this current electronic age, it is difficult to imagine that business files

cannot be produced in either forum. Thus, this factor is neutral because whether this case was

transferred or not, one party would be required to transport their documents. See MercedesBenz USA, LLC v. ATX Group, Inc., Civil No. 08-3529, 2009 WL 2255727, *4 (D.N.J. Jul. 27,

2009) (“The location of the disputed records is . . . neutral since there is nothing to suggest that

the records, which are admittedly in electronic form, cannot be easily transmitted ....”). 

On the whole, the private interest factors strongly favor transfer to the Central District of

California due in large part because that is where the operative facts occurred.

 Plaintiffs claim that Weinberg would likely be permitted to travel to New Jersey for this 6

litigation but that is mere supposition. Nothing in the record indicates that. Moreover, while it is

true that Stern’s incarceration is an impediment to him appearing in either Los Angeles or in

New Jersey, that impediment is certainly greater were this matter to proceed here. The Court has

had to undertake tremendous efforts to schedule a hearing concerning Stern and his counsel’s

request for withdrawal. It is more likely Stern could be transported for the trial were it to

proceed in Los Angeles, than if it were to proceed in New Jersey. 

12

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 12 of 14 PageID: 1713
C. Public Interest Factors

As noted, the public factors to be considered by courts include: “the enforceability of the

judgment; practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the

relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; the local interest

in deciding local controversies at home; the public policies of the fora; and the familiarity of the

trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.” Jumara, 55 F. 3d at 879-80 (internal

citations omitted). Other public factors include, but are not limited to, “the unfairness of

burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.” Windt, 529 F.3d at 192 (citing Gulf

Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09). “In evaluating the public interest factors the district court must

consider the locus of the alleged culpable conduct, often a disputed issue, and the connection of

that conduct to plaintiff’s chosen forum.” Chimet, supra, at *10. 

7

The Court finds no reason to suggest that the public factors favor keeping this case here. 

On a whole, these factors are somewhat neutral, although California courts do have an interest in

adjudicating matters involving businesses and property located there. When an action involves

injuries sustained in a particular locale, the public interest supports adjudication of the

controversy in that locale where it may be a matter of local attention, rather than in a remote

location where it will be learned of only by report.” Coppola v. Ferrellgas, 250 F.R.D. 195, 201

(E.D. Pa. 2008). 

 Plaintiffs raise the lateness of Roof Group’s motion as a factor for the Court to consider. 7

Considering the number of motions that have been filed, many from the defendants, it certainly

would have been better practice for the Roof Group to bring this motion earlier rather than later. 

Nevertheless, Roof Group is correct that its filing of the motion was in line with the Court’s

schedule and that no case or rule suggests that a motion to transfer can be denied solely for

untimeliness. 

13

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 13 of 14 PageID: 1714
Roof Group argues that it will be easier for California courts to apply California law, but

federal courts are accustomed to applying the law of various states, and this factor has little

weight. 

Finally, the Court finds that a New Jersey community would be unfairly burdened by jury

service in this case. Because the conduct did not take place in New Jersey, the conduct did not

occur here, and the restaurant and property at issue are not located here, there is no dispute local

or significantly related to the New Jersey community. “[W]ithout a dispute local to the

community of New Jersey, there is little public interest in subjecting that community to the

burdens of jury service.” Windt, 529 F.3d at 193. The Court finds that the public factors also

somewhat favor transfer to the Central District of California and, on balance, that the private and

public factors strongly favor transfer. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant the motion to transfer this case to the

United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a) should be granted. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.

Date: November 5, 2012 s/Michael A. Hammer 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

Case 2:11-cv-03439-JLL-MAH Document 137 Filed 11/05/12 Page 14 of 14 PageID: 1715