Order | Filed: July 24, 2026
| Entered: July 24, 2026
Mercante v. Tarzia
Assault Libel & Slander | New York Eastern
Order on Motion to Change Venue Order on Motion to Stay
ORDER granting 107 Consent Motion to Transfer Case. The Court transfers this civil action to the Southern District of California. See United States v. Rare Breed Triggers, LLC, 669 F. Supp. 3d 169, 178-80 (E.D.N.Y. 2023) (holding that district courts in the Second Circuit "appl[y] a two-part test to motions to transfer venue under § 1404(a)" where the court first "must determine whether the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee forum," analyzing both personal jurisdiction and venue, and second "whether transfer is appropriate" considering "a host of equitable factors").
The Court finds that: (1) the parties have consented to such transfer, see Louis v. City of New York, No. 24-CV-7171, 2024 WL 5298602, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2024) (granting transfer where the parties consented because "[i]f the parties consent to a transfer venue, the first step is obviated"); (2) Plaintiff might have originally brought the case in the Southern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and the law on personal jurisdiction, because Defendant resides in the County of San Diego, California, (see Second Am. Compl. ("SAC") 32, Docket Entry No. 13), see Gordon v. State Farm & Cas. Co., No. 24-CV-8392, 2025 WL 1079096, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2025) (granting transfer where the defendant resided in the transferee district); and (3) the relevant equitable factors weigh in favor of transfer as Plaintiff brings this motion to transfer and Defendant consents, and the locus of operative facts, and location of relevant evidence, involves California and not New York because most of the alleged tortious conduct by Defendant occurred online or in California, (Mem. & Order, Docket Entry No. 37), see Gordon, 2025 WL 1079096, at *3 (granting transfer where the equitable factors weighed in favor of transfer, including that the plaintiff moved to transfer, did not dispute that the action could have been brought there, and a substantial part of the events took place in the transferee district); Louis, 2024 WL 5298602, at *2 (finding the equitable factors favored transfer due, in part, to the parties' mutual consent).
Further, as consented to by both parties, the Court grants the motion to stay transfer of this case until after the resolution of 100 motion for sanctions and 96 appeal of Judge Eshkenazi's denial to issue an order to show cause. See Louis, 2024 WL 5298602, at *2 (granting motion to stay transfer finding the factors considered by a court in deciding the appropriateness of a stay weighed in favor, in part, because the parties consented to the stay). After the adjudication of both motions, the parties shall file a joint letter motion to lift the stay.
Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 7/24/2026. (FSC)