In Jones v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 2020 WL 2521328 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2020), a sexual harassment case, the court transferred the case to the District of New Jersey.
After summarizing the general principles governing the setting of venue in a federal district court – namely, that venue lies in a district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” (see 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2); Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner, 417 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 2005)) – the court applied them to the facts of this case:
[T]he Complaint references New York twice: once to note that Fox Rothschild has a New York office, and once to note that Siminoff sent “some” of the many lewd text messages at issue while he was in that office. In a case that includes serious allegations of sexual harassment (in New Jersey), attempted rape (in New Jersey), and potential failures of the staff of an office (located in New Jersey) to respond to a dangerous and abusive situation, and in which the Complaint is permeated by references to persons and conduct in New Jersey, that Siminoff may have sent “some” improper text messages from New York is far from enough to constitute a substantial part of these events.
Based on this, the court transferred the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a).