Madagoni v. Nissen et al.

Summary

The court transfers Catherine Madagoni’s pro se civil action against Leif M. Nissen and Madagoni, LLC from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court concludes that New Jersey is a proper and more convenient venue because the defendants and alleged events are located there, and it closes the action in the Southern District of New York.

Holdings

1. The District of New Jersey was a proper venue for Plaintiff's RICO claims because both defendants allegedly resided, were found, had an agent, or transacted their affairs there, while the complaint did not show that either defendant had such a connection to the Southern District of New York.
2. The District of New Jersey was a proper venue for Plaintiff's remaining civil claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2), because both defendants allegedly resided in New Jersey and a substantial part of the alleged events occurred there.
3. Transfer to the District of New Jersey was appropriate under § 1404(a) because the defendants, the alleged events, and likely relevant documents and witnesses were located there, making it a more convenient forum for all claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Southern District of New York was a proper venue for Plaintiff's RICO and other civil claims under the applicable federal venue statutes.
2. Whether the action should be transferred to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

Disposition

transferred