Case 1:05-cv-00777-JBS-JS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 164
`Civil No. 05-777 (JBS)
`Michael O. Kassak, Esq.
`457 Haddonfield Road
`Suite 400
`Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`Howard S. Feintuch, Esq.
`721 Newark Avenue
`Jersey City, New Jersey 07306
`Attorney for Defendants
`SIMANDLE, U.S. District Judge:
`Plaintiff brought this action in state court seeking, among
`other things, a declaration that certain Life Insurance Policy
`Purchase and Sale Agreements are valid and enforceable as between
`the parties. The case was subsequently removed to this Court,
`and Defendants now move for dismissal based on improper venue or,
`alternatively, to have this matter transferred to either the
`Eastern District of New York or the Newark Vicinage of this
`District. For the reasons now stated, the Court will deny the
`motion in its entirety.

`Case 1:05-cv-00777-JBS-JS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 10 PageID: 165
`According to the Complaint, on or about January 4, 1992,
`Defendants Bernat and Margit Steinmatz created the Defendant
`Growth Trust Fund (“Growth Trust” or “Trust”) for the purpose of
`transferring ownership of various life insurance policies owned
`by, and covering, Bernat Steinmatz. (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 20.) The
`remaining trustees of the Growth Trust included individual
`defendants Michael Steinmetz, Leah Cohen, and Abraham and Fay
`Weingarten (collectively “Trustees”). (Id. ¶¶ 3-8.) Plaintiff
`Senior Settlements is a New Jersey Limited Liability Company
`primarily in the business of investing in “senior settlements”
`such as the Growth Trust Fund. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 17.)
`On or about June 25, 2004, Senior Settlements allegedly
`presented the Trust with offers to buy the Policies. (Id. ¶ 21.)
`According to Plaintiff, the parties executed three separate Life
`Insurance Policy Purchase and Sale Agreements (“Agreements”)
`conveying ownership of the Policies from the Trust to Plaintiff.
`(Pl. Ex. A.) According to the Complaint, on or about October 28,
`2004, Defendant Michael Steinmetz stated that the Steinmetz
`family did not wish to proceed with the Agreements. (Compl. ¶
` The three policies at issue are: (1) North American
`Company Policy No. LN00534750; (2) American General Policy No.
`24002141L; and (3) American General Policy No. 24002079L
`(collectively the “Policies”). (Compl. ¶ 18.)

`Case 1:05-cv-00777-JBS-JS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 3 of 10 PageID: 166
`Plaintiff subsequently instituted this suit in the Superior
`Court of New Jersey, Camden County, seeking a declaration that
`the Agreements are valid and enforceable and asserting a claim
`for breach of contract. The matter was removed to this Court on
`February 7, 2005, and Defendants subsequently filed the instant
`Defendants have moved, in the first instance, for dismissal
`of the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., and 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1406, asserting improper venue.
`Alternatively, Defendants seek to transfer this matter to either
`the Eastern District of New York or the Newark Vicinage of the
`District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. The
`parties, through counsel, have submitted briefs in support and
`opposition to the motion, which this Court has considered. The
`Defendants are residents of Brooklyn, New York, while Plaintiff
`is a New Jersey Limited Liability Company with its principal
`place of business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, located in Camden
`County. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-8.) This Court has jurisdiction under 28
`U.S.C. § 1332.
`Duty of Disclosure
`Preliminarily, the Court notes that Defendants’ written
`submission omits any reference to the forum selection clause
`contained in the Agreements. (Pl. Ex. A. ¶ 17.) That provision

`Case 1:05-cv-00777-JBS-JS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 4 of 10 PageID: 167
`identifies New Jersey as the exclusive forum for any legal
`proceedings “arising out of or in connection with” the Agreement.
`(Id.) The Court would like to remind Defendants’ counsel of his
`“continuing duty to inform the Court of any development which may
`conceivably affect the outcome” of the litigation. Fusari v.
`Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379, 391 (1975) (Burger, C.J., concurring).
`This is so even where the information may be unfavorable to the
`interests of the litigant. See In re Universal Minerals Inc.,
`755 F.2d 309, 313 (3d Cir. 1985). Cf. Model Rules of
`Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3 (2002) (candor toward tribunal).
`This obligation is designed to promote respect for the judicial
`process as well as the just resolution of juridical disputes.
`Counsel’s failure here to bring to the Court’s attention the
`forum selection provision serves only to frustrate these twin
`aims. Arguing that the contract is not binding is not a
`substitute for ignoring the forum selection clause for disputes
`concerning the alleged contract. The Court hereby admonishes
`counsel to avoid such conduct in the future.
`Forum Selection Provision
`As already noted, the Agreements at issue contain a forum
`selection clause choosing New Jersey. That provision states, in
`pertinent part:
`The parties hereto irrevocably and unconditionally
`agree that any suit, action, or other legal proceeding
`arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, or
`the transactions contemplated hereby, shall be brought

`Case 1:05-cv-00777-JBS-JS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 5 of 10 PageID: 168
`in the courts of record of the State of New Jersey or
`the courts of the United States located in said state,
`consent to the jurisdiction of each such court in any
`such suit, action or proceedings, and waive any
`objection to the venue of any such suit, action or
`proceedings in any of such courts.
`(Pl. Ex. A at ¶ 17.) The instant dispute unquestionably
`“aris[es] out of or in connection with th[e] Agreement,” thereby
`triggering the above provision. The issue, then, is whether that
`clause is valid. For the reasons now explained, the Court holds
`that it is. 2
`In The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., the United States
`Supreme Court held that forum selection clauses are “prima facie
`valid and should be enforced unless enforcement is shown by the
`resisting party to be ‘unreasonable’ under the circumstances.”
` Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a):
` civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on
`diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise
`provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial
`district where any defendant resides, if all defendants
`reside in the same State, (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 the property that is the subject of the action
`is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any
`defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the
`time the action is commenced, if there is no district
`in which the action may otherwise be brought.
`(Emphasis added). In the present case, venue would ordinarily
`lie in New York unless a substantial part of the events or
`omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in New Jersey. The
`forum selection clause, however, displaces the statutory venue
`selection unless unreasonable under the circumstances, as
`discussed in the text which follows.
`2 A

`Case 1:05-cv-00777-JBS-JS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 6 of 10 PageID: 169
`Foster v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 933 F.2d 1207, 1218-19 (3d Cir.
`1991) (quoting 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972)). A forum selection clause
`is “unreasonable” if the defendant can make a “strong showing”
`either (1) that the forum thus selected is “so gravely difficult
`and inconvenient” that the defendant “will for all practicable
`purposes be deprived of his day in court” or (2) that the clause
`was procured through “fraud or overreaching.” Foster, 933 F.2d
`at 1219 (quoting The Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15, 18). “That there
`may not have been actual negotiations over the [forum selection]
`clause does not affect its validity.” Foster, 933 F.2d at 1219
`(citing Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585
`As in Foster, Defendants here have made “[n]o showing – let
`alone a “strong showing” – of either of these elements . . . .”
`Defendants argue that this action should be transferred, among
`other reasons, due to the age of a single defendant.
`Specifically, Defendants note that “[t]he primary defendant
`Bernat Steinmatz is 80 years old, a Holocaust survivor, and,
`understandably has difficulty traveling long distances from his
`home in Brooklyn, New York.” (Defs. Br. at 8.) By itself, Mr.
`Steinmatz’s age does not demonstrate how enforcement of the forum
`selection clause would be “so gravely difficult and inconvenient
`that he will for all practicable purposes be deprived of his day
`in court.” Arentowicz v. CAP Gemini Ernst & Young, 2004 U.S.

`Case 1:05-cv-00777-JBS-JS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 7 of 10 PageID: 170
`Dist. LEXIS 16536, at *16 (D.N.J. July 16, 2004) (quoting Foster,
`933 F.2d at 1219).
`To be sure, courts may consider the age of the parties as a
`factor in deciding whether to transfer an action to a venue other
`than that designated by a forum selection clause. In BSB Bank &
`Trust Co. v. Morrison, for example, the district court made the
`following observation in transferring an action from the
`designated forum: “Normally, the Court would have little
`difficulty denying the motion to change venue on the basis that
`the forum selection clause was controlling. Here, however, the
`Court is presented with two elderly defendants, both of whom have
`significant health problems.” 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5408, at *5
`(N.D.N.Y. April 4, 2003). In addition to their age, though, the
`defendants there presented “significant medical evidence” that
`each was “at risk for sudden death.” The court further explained
`that due to “the extreme nature of the[ir] illnesses,” if the
`action were not transferred the defendants “would be entirely
`left out of the process due to their health concerns.” Id. at
`Here, on the other hand, Defendants have failed to present
`any evidence suggesting that Mr. Steinmatz (or any of the other
`six individual defendants) suffers from such serious medical
`infirmities. Additionally, the Agreements were purportedly
`entered into just last year. Conceivably, Mr. Steinmatz’s age

`Case 1:05-cv-00777-JBS-JS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 8 of 10 PageID: 171
`was as much an obstacle (if any) to his ability to travel then as
`it is now. At the very least, such an impediment to travel would
`have been foreseeable by Mr. Steinmatz at the time of contract.
`See General Engineering Corp. v. Marietta Alumina, Inc., 783 F.2d
`352, 359 (3d Cir. 1986) (holding risk of witness unavailability
`at the time of contract easily forseeable and, thus, enforcement
`of forum selection clause not unreasonable).
` Moreover, Brooklyn and Camden are separated by about 100
`miles – less than a two-hour car ride. This is not a
`circumstance which makes attendance in court unusually difficult
`for Mr. Steinmatz or other Defendants. In any event, even
`accepting that travel may be inconvenient for Defendants, “mere
`inconvenience . . . is not the test for unreasonableness.”
`Arentowicz, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16536, at *16 (quoting Danka
`Funding, L.L.C. v. Page, Scrantom, Sprouse, Tucker & Ford, P.C.,
`21 F. Supp. 2d 465, 472 (D.N.J. 1998) (quoting Central
`Contracting Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 367 F.2d 341, 344 (3d
`Cir. 1966)). For these reasons, the forum selection clause in
`the Agreements is enforceable and, thus, venue in New Jersey is
`Finally, the Court must examine whether transfer to Newark
`is appropriate. For the following reasons, the Court holds that
` The forum selection clause does not require that this
`action be brought in any particular vicinage within the District
`of New Jersey. (Pl. Ex. A at ¶ 17.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),

`Case 1:05-cv-00777-JBS-JS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 9 of 10 PageID: 172
`it is not. It is sufficient to state only that Newark is located
`roughly 80 miles from this Court. Such a short distance does not
`warrant transfer, especially considering that Plaintiff’s
`principal place of business is in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and
`the Court will not order transfer of a case if doing so merely
`shifts the burden from one party to another. Van Dusen v.
`Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 646 (1964). See also Leesona Corp. v.
`Duplan Corp., 317 F. Supp. 290 (D.R.I. 1970) (denying motion to
`transfer where distance between two forums, 200 miles, was
`relatively short). Additionally, the Newark Vicinage has no
`known connection with the circumstances of this case. Because
`the convenience of the parties and witnesses would not best be
`served by transferring this case to Newark, and because the
`interests of justice do not so require, this Court will deny
`Defendants’ motion to transfer venue to Newark.
`“For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the
`interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil
`action to any other . . . division where it might have been

`Case 1:05-cv-00777-JBS-JS Document 9 Filed 10/26/05 Page 10 of 10 PageID: 173
`For the reasons explained supra, the forum selection clause
`contained in the Agreements at the center of this dispute is
`enforceable. Accordingly, the action will not be dismissed for
`improper venue or transferred to the Eastern District of New
`York. Moreover, this Court will deny Defendants’ motion to
`transfer the action to Newark.
`The accompanying Order is entered.
`October 26, 2005
`s/ Jerome B. Simandle
`U.S. District Judge

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.


A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.

Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket