BARR v. LINEAGE

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ELONIA BARR,
Plaintiff,
v.
LINEAGE LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 2:25-cv-16630 (BRM) (ADS)
OPINION
MARTINOTTI , DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant Lineage Logistics Services, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion to
Transfer Venue and, in the Alternative, to Compel Arbitration (“Motion”). (ECF No. 22.) Elonia
Barr (“Plaintiff”) filed an Opposition (ECF No. 23), and Defendant filed a Reply (ECF No. 24).
Having reviewed and considered the parties’ submissions filed in connection with the Motion and
having declined to hold oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), for the
reasons set forth below and for good cause having been shown, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer
Venue is GRANTED, and Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED as moot.
I. 	FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on October 14, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges her former employer, Lineage Logistics
Services, LLC, discriminated against her on the basis of her race in violation of under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act. (Id. §§ 37–41.)
Defendant is a warehouse and logistics company in the food storage, preparation, and
transportation industry. (ECF No. 22-1 at 8; ECF No. 23 at 8.) Defendant is headquartered in Novi,
Case 2:25-cv-16630-BRM-ADS Document 25 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID:
<pageID>

2
Michigan. (Id.) On May 3, 2019, Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a Customer Care
Representative in Defendant’s Elizabeth, New Jersey facility. (Id.) Plaintiff lived in New Jersey at
the time. (Id.)
By October 2021, Plaintiff was promoted to Business Analyst, a fully remote role. (Id.) The
parties dispute whether Plaintiff moved to Florida or merely “split her time” between Florida and
New Jersey while Plaintiff worked in this remote role. (ECF No. 22-1 at 8; ECF No. 23 at 8, 17;
ECF No. 24 at 1.) In that role, Plaintiff assisted with the production and implementation of a
program called Lineage Link, Defendant’s customer service platform. (ECF No. 22-1 at 9; ECF
No. 23 at 8.)
On November 6, 2022, Amanda Cook (“Cook”) became Plaintiff’s supervisor. (ECF No.
22-1 at 9; ECF No. 23 at 9.) Cook worked at Defendant’s corporate headquarters in Novi,
Michigan, and resided in Michigan. (ECF No. 22-1 at 9, 18; ECF No. 23 at 8, 18.) Cook made the
decision to place Plaintiff on a Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”), conducted weekly PIP
meetings, and ultimately, terminated Plaintiff’s employment, all from Defendant’s headquarters in
Michigan. (ECF No. 22-1 at 9; ECF No. 23 at 9.)
On April 17, 2026, Defendant filed a pre-motion letter seeking dismissal of the Complaint
because Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies or, in the alternative, to compel
arbitration. (ECF No. 11.) On April 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendant’s pre-motion
letter. (ECF No. 18.) On May 13, 2026, this Court conferred with the parties and scheduled briefing
on the Motion. (ECF No. 19.)
II. 	L EGAL S TANDARD
A motion to transfer venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which reads: “For the
convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any
Case 2:25-cv-16630-BRM-ADS Document 25 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID:
<pageID>

3
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.”
Therefore, in deciding a motion to transfer, the Court must first determine whether the
alternative forum is a proper venue. Fernandes v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 157 F. Supp. 3d
383, 389 (D.N.J. 2015); see 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Venue is appropriate in:
(1) 	a judicial 	district 	in 	which 	any 	defendant 	resides, 	if 	all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
(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 (3) if there is
no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided
in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject
to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Once proper venue is established, “[t]he decision whether to transfer falls in the sound
discretion of the trial court.” Park Inn Int’l, L.L.C. v. Mody Enters., Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 370, 377
(D.N.J. 2000). However, “the burden of establishing the need for transfer . . . rests with the
movant.” Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995); see also ML Design
Grp., LLC v. Young Mgf. Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 12-5583, 2013 WL3049174, at *2 (D.N.J. June 17,
2013) (“When requesting transfer, the ‘moving party has the burden of demonstrating by a
preponderance of the evidence that transfer is appropriate.’” (citation omitted)).
In exercising its discretion and ruling on this motion, a court applies a balancing test
considering the three factors enumerated in § 1404(a): (1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the
convenience of the witnesses; and (3) the interests of justice. Liggett Grp., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., 102 F. Supp. 2d 518, 526 (D.N.J. 2000) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Jumara, 55 F.3d
at 879). These factors are not exclusive and must be applied through a “flexible and individualized
analysis . . . made on the unique facts presented in each case.” Id. at 527 (citation omitted).
Case 2:25-cv-16630-BRM-ADS Document 25 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID:
<pageID>

4
The first two factors have been refined into a non-exhaustive list of private and public
interest factors for a court to examine and balance. See Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879–80. With respect
to the private interest factors, a court should consider:
(1) plaintiff’s forum preference as manifested in the original choice;
(2) 	the 	defendant’s 	preference; 	(3) 	whether 	the 	claim 	arose
elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties as indicated by their
relative physical and financial condition; (5) 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 (6) the location of books
and records (similarly limited to the extent that the files could not
be produced in the alternative forum).
Danka Funding, L.L.C. v. Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, P.C., 21 F. Supp. 2d 465, 474
(D.N.J. 1998) (quoting Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879) (internal quotation marks omitted). With respect
to the public interest factors, a court should consider:
(1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical considerations
that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; (3) the
relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court
congestion; (4) the local interest in deciding local controversies at
home; (5) the public policies of the fora; and (6) the familiarity of
the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.
Id. (quoting Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879–80) (internal quotation marks omitted).
III. 	DECISION
A. Personal Jurisdiction
In moving to transfer venue, Defendant contends the Eastern District of Michigan is a
proper and superior venue. (ECF No. 22-1 at 7.) An action may be transferred pursuant to the plain
language of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), where “a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought.” Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), “[a]
civil action may be brought in . . . a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants
are residents of the State in which the district is located.” Here, Defendant is the sole defendant in
this matter and headquartered in Novi, Michigan (ECF No. 22-1 at 8; ECF No. 23 at 8.)
Case 2:25-cv-16630-BRM-ADS Document 25 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID:
<pageID>

5
Accordingly, the Court finds this action could have been brought in the Eastern District of
Michigan and may, therefore, proceed with its analysis of weighing private and public interest
factors.
B. The Court Will Transfer This Action to the Eastern District of Michigan
1. 	Private Interest Factors
a. 	The Parties’ Forum Preferences
Plaintiff seeks to proceed in the District of New Jersey because she filed her discrimination
complaint in this District. Plaintiff prefers the District of New Jersey because she claims she
maintains a primary residence here, and worked out of that home in her Business Analyst role.
(ECF No. 23 at 17.) Defendant seeks to transfer venue to the District of East Michigan because
that is where Defendant is located. (ECF No. 22-1 at 8; ECF No. 23 at 8.) Courts give a plaintiff’s
choice of forum less deference when a “substantial part of the events and operative facts in th[e]
action” occur outside the transferor district. Colon v. Pitney Bowes Corp., Civ. A. No. 06-5016,
2007 WL 496875, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 8, 2007). Therefore, the Court examines “whether the claim
arose elsewhere.” Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879–80
b. 	Where the Claim Arose
None of the alleged actions, statements, or employment decision underlying Plaintiff’s
claims occurred in New Jersey. Plaintiff does not dispute her supervisor was located in Michigan.1
Plaintiff concedes “Ms. Cook made the decision to place [Plaintiff] on a [PIP], and ultimately,
terminate her employment for Lineage headquarters in Michigan.” (ECF No. 23 at 9.) Plaintiff
1 Plaintiff admits Cook worked at Defendant’s Lineage headquarters at least some of the time.
(ECF No. 23 at 9.)
Case 2:25-cv-16630-BRM-ADS Document 25 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID:
<pageID>

6
also concedes “Ms. Cook conducted weekly PIP meetings with [Plaintiff] from Ms. Cook’s office
in Michigan.” (Id.)
Whether Plaintiff lived full-time in Florida2 or merely split her time between New Jersey
and Florida matters little. See Papa v. Ins. Grp., 822 F.Supp.3d 465, 471–72 (D.N.J. Mar. 3, 2026)
(finding transfer was appropriate because the alleged “discriminatory” actions were made by
employees located outside of New Jersey, despite the fact plaintiff worked remotely from New
Jersey); see also Kharthchenko v. Am. Oncological Hospital, Inc., Civ. A. No. 23-23043, 2025 WL
3140604, at *2–3 (D.N.J. Nov. 10, 2025); Wayne v. Fuji Photo Film USA Inc., Civ. A. No. 07-
5536, 2008 WL 3832406, at *2, *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2008).
Plaintiff argues the “lyons share [sic]” of her work for Defendant occurred in New Jersey.
(ECF No. 23 at 18.) Plaintiff states the adverse employment decisions (i.e., the PIP and subsequent
termination) occurred “on-line” while Plaintiff was in New Jersey. (Id.) But in employment
discrimination cases, courts consider “where the alleged discriminatory decisions were made
instead of where the plaintiff felt the effects of the decisions.” Papa, 822 F. Supp. 3d at 471–72;
Yacovella v. Apparel Imports, Inc., No. 14-5484, 2015 WL 5098009, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 31, 2015)
(determining transfer motion based on where the decision to terminate employee occurred instead
of where employee received his termination letter).
Plaintiff argues Papa is distinguishable because she “perform[ed] substantial work for the
Elizabeth New Jersey office or to clients who have substantial work in New Jersey” even though
Plaintiff worked remotely. (ECF No. 23 at 20.) The Court agrees with Defendant these assertions
are vague and do not explain what work Plaintiff performed in New Jersey. Nor does Plaintiff
2 Defendant provides evidence Plaintiff, in October 2021, changed her address in Defendant’s
system to her address in Florida, which informed how Defendant administered her tax withholding
and payroll. (See ECF No. 24 at 3.)
Case 2:25-cv-16630-BRM-ADS Document 25 Filed 10/08/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID:
<pageID>

7
detail how her work impacted the company’s operations in New Jersey. Moreover, where
Defendant’s clients are located or do business is not relevant to this analysis. The parties agree
Plaintiff assisted with the production and implementation of a nation-wide program customer
service platform. (ECF No. 22-1 at 9; ECF No. 23 at 8.) Nothing in the record suggests this
customer service platform targeted New Jersey customers, New Jersey facilities, or New Jersey
specifically. Accordingly, the Court finds a “substantial part of the events and operative facts in
th[e] action” occurred outside of this District. Colon, 2007 WL 496875, at *3.
c. 	Convenience Factors
Defendant claims the convenience factors weigh in favor of transfer because Defendant’s
main witness, Cook, is a Michigan resident, and because Defendant’s other witnesses are not
located in New Jersey.3 (ECF No. 22-1 at 18.) Defendant argues Plaintiff will have to travel either
way, either to New Jersey or Michigan, and Plaintiff has not argued she does not have the means
to travel.4 (Id.) Plaintiff responds she lives in New Jersey and three of her proposed witnesses are
in New Jersey.5 (ECF No. 23 at 18, 21.)
Plaintiff fails to articulate what expenses her witnesses would incur, or how inconvenienced
they would be, by traveling to the Eastern District of Michigan. In contrast, Defendant has
indicated its witnesses would face minimal inconvenience by having to travel to their employers’
headquarters. Therefore, the Court finds transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan would
“prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and [] protect litigants, witnesses and the public
3 Defendant states these three witnesses live in New York, Texas, and California. (ECF No. 22-1
at 18.)
4 Plaintiff concedes this point. (ECF No. 23 at 21.)
5 Plaintiff fails to provide declarations or affidavits in support of the same.
Case 2:25-cv-16630-BRM-ADS Document 25 Filed 10/08/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID:
<pageID>

8
against unnecessary inconvenience and expense[.]” Dinterman v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 26 F.
Supp. 2d 747, 749 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (citation omitted).
2. 	Public Interest Factors
Defendant argues a judgment rendered in the Eastern District of Michigan can be enforced
in either New Jersey or Florida. (ECF No. 22-1 at 18.) Defendant further notes the case presents
no application or interpretation of New Jersey state law. (Id. at 19.) Finally, Defendant correctly
points out the District of New Jersey’s caseload is substantially more congested than the Eastern
District of Michigan’s caseload.6 (Id.)
Plaintiff concedes these points. (ECF No. 23 at 22.) In fact, Plaintiff claims the public
interest factors are “equally divided between the parties.” (Id. at 23.) In response to Defendant’s
arguments, Plaintiff states: (1) Defendants’ employment decisions impacted a New Jersey resident,
and (2) there is no reason why this Court cannot adjudicate this matter timely, appropriately or
faithfully. (Id. at 22–23.) While this Court would be hard put to deny it could not adjudicate this
matter timely, appropriately or faithfully, the Plaintiff’s status as a New Jersey resident is not
enough to find the public interest factors weigh in favor of retaining Plaintiff’s case.
“Defendants have established by a preponderance of evidence that transfer is appropriate
‘in the interest of justice.’” ML Design Grp., LLC, 2013 WL 3049174, at *4 (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a)). Accordingly, the Court finds the public interest factors also favor transfer to the Eastern
District of Michigan.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
6 Indeed, the District of New Jersey ranks as one of the busiest judicial districts in the nation in
terms of total civil filings. Despite its size, it is eighth in terms of weighted civil filings per
judgeship. 	See 	Federal 	Judicial 	Caseload 	Statistics, 	UNITED 	S TATES 	C OURTS ,
https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/data-tables/2026/06/30/statistical-tables-federal-judiciary/x-
1a (June 30, 2026).
Case 2:25-cv-16630-BRM-ADS Document 25 Filed 10/08/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID:
<pageID>

9
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED,
and the Motion to Compel Arbitration is DENIED as moot. An appropriate order follows.
/s/ Brian R. Martinotti
HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
UNITED S TATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 8, 2026
Case 2:25-cv-16630-BRM-ADS Document 25 Filed 10/08/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID:
<pageID>