Aranovsky v. Porzio et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ARANOVSKY,
Plaintiff,
-v-
RALPH J. PORZIO, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
X
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
X
1:26-cv-1181-GHW
ORDER
GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:
The Court thanks Plaintiff for his letter in response to the Court’s order to show cause. See
Dkt. No. 9. As discussed in that order, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or 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 or to any district or division to which all parties
have consented.” “District courts have broad discretion in making determinations of convenience
under Section 1404(a) and notions of convenience and fairness are considered on a case-by-case
basis.” D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, courts may
transfer cases on their own initiative. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Wilmington Trust FSB, 943 F. Supp. 2d
417, 426–27 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Courts have an independent institutional concern to see to it that the
burdens of litigation that is unrelated to the forum that a party chooses are not imposed
unreasonably on jurors and judges who have enough to do in determining cases that are
appropriately before them. The power of district courts to transfer cases under Section 1404(a) sua
sponte therefore is well established.” (quoting Cento v. Pearl Arts & Craft Supply Inc., No. 03-CV-2424,
2003 WL 1960595, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2003))).
To determine whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider the following factors: (1) the
convenience of witnesses; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the locus of operative facts; (4) the
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 2/25/2026
Case 1:26-cv-01117-NRM-PK Document 10 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
availability of process to compel the attendance of the unwilling witnesses; (5) the location of
relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (6) the relative means of the
parties; (7) the forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded to the plaintiff’s
choice of forum; (9) trial efficiency; and (10) the interest of justice, based on the totality of
circumstances. Keitt v. N.Y. City, 882 F. Supp. 2d 412, 459–60 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
The Court recognizes that Plaintiff would prefer to stay in this District, as he chose this
forum. Dkt. No. 9. Having considered the relevant factors, the Court believes that the interests of
justice are better served by transferring this case to the Eastern District of New York. Although
Plaintiff’s choice of forum weighs against transfer, several other factors—including the convenience
of witnesses and parties, the location of relevant evidence, and the locus of operative facts—weigh
in favor of transfer. As a result, this case will be transferred to the Eastern District of New York.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order
would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to the Eastern District of New York
without delay.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2026
New York, New York 	__________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge
_____________	__	___	__	__	__	__	__	__	____	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	____	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	_____	___	___	___	__	____	__	__	__	____	__	___	____	__	__	__	__	_____	__	__	__	__	__	__	__	___	__	____	__	________ ___
GREG	EG	G	EG	EG	EG	EG	EG	EG	EG	EG	E	EG	E 	OR	OR	OR	OR	OR	OR	OR	OR	OR	O	OR	O	O Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y H. WOODS
United States District Judg
Case 1:26-cv-01117-NRM-PK Document 10 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>