Steamfitters Local 449 Retirement Security Fund v. Badger Meter, Inc. — Entry #59: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 49 MOTION to Transfer Case Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern…

Case 1:26-cv-04660-VEC              Document 59           Filed 10/02/26   Page 1 of 4
                                                                                USDC SDNY
                                                                                DOCUMENT
                                                                                ELECTRONICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                                                    DOC #:
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK                                                   DATE FILED: 10/2/2026
 -------------------------------------------------------------- X
 CITY PENSION FUND FOR FIREFIGHTERS                             :
 AND POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CITY OF                             :
 TAMPA,                                                         :
                                                                :         26-CV-4660 (VEC)
                                              Plaintiff,        :
                                                                :         MEMORANDUM
                            -against-                           :       OPINION AND ORDER
                                                                :
 BADGER METER, INC., KENNETH C.                                 :
 BOCKHORST, ROBERT A. WROCKLAGE, and :
 DANIEL R. WELTZIEN,                                            :
                                                                :
                                              Defendants. :
 -------------------------------------------------------------- X

VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:

          This case was initiated with the filing of a class action complaint against Badger Meter,

Inc. (“Badger” or the “Company”), and various of its officers (the “Individual Defendants”) on

June 2, 2026. See Compl., Dkt. 1. On August 3, 2026, six sets of movants filed for appointment

as Lead Plaintiff, including the City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City

of Tampa (“Tampa Fund”). See Dkts. 17, 21, 24, 27, 31, 34. On August 13, 2026, the Tampa

Fund was appointed Lead Plaintiff in this action and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP and Motley

Rice LLC were approved as co-lead counsel for the putative class. See Dkt. 45. Defendants

have since moved to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Wisconsin. See Dkt. 49. Lead Plaintiff does not oppose Defendants’ transfer request.

See id.

          Section 1404(a) provides that for “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


       Case 1:26-cv-04660-VEC            Document 59       Filed 10/02/26      Page 2 of 4


consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Courts in this district apply a two-part inquiry under Section

1404(a). Royal & Sun All. Ins., PLC v. Nippon Express USA, Inc., 202 F. Supp. 3d 399, 405

(S.D.N.Y. 2016). First, the movant must establish that the action could have been brought in the

proposed transferee forum. Id. Second, the movant must establish that the balance of interests

favors transfer. Id. Both factors are satisfied here.

       Badger Meter is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal executive offices in

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. See Compl. ¶ 18; Bergum Decl., Dkt. 52 ¶ 3. The Individual

Defendants all work at the Company’s headquarters, and the alleged conduct stems from their

roles as Badger officers working from the Company’s Milwaukee base. See Compl. ¶¶ 19–21;

Bergum Decl. ¶¶ 3–7. Each Individual Defendants also resides in Wisconsin. See Bergum Decl.

¶¶ 4–7. Plainly, Badger and the Individual Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in

Wisconsin.

       The balance of interests also favors transfer. Courts typically consider nine non-exclusive

factors in determining whether transfer is appropriate:

       (1) the plaintiffs choice of forum, (2) the convenience of witnesses, (3) the location
       of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the
       convenience of parties, (5) the locus of operative facts, (6) the availability of
       process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, (7) the relative means of
       the parties, (8) the comparative familiarity of each district with the governing law,
       and (9) judicial econom[y] and the interests of justice.

McGraw-Hill Cos. Inc. v. Jones, No. 12-CV-7085 (AJN), 2014 WL 988607, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.

Mar. 12, 2014); N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir.

2010). “[N]o one factor is dispositive and the relative weight of each factor depends on the

particular circumstances of the case.” Smart Skins LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 14-CV-10149

(CM), 2015 WL 1499843, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2015). Rather, “[t]he core determination

under [Section] 1404(a) is the center of gravity of the litigation.” NBA Properties, Inc. v.


                                                  2


       Case 1:26-cv-04660-VEC            Document 59        Filed 10/02/26       Page 3 of 4


Salvino, Inc., No. 99-CV-11799 (AGS), 2000 WL 323257, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000)

(quoting Bordiga v. Directors Guild of Am., 159 F.R.D. 457, 462 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)).

       Having considered all the factors enumerated above, transfer pursuant to Section 1404(a)

is appropriate. As discussed, Badger is principally located in Milwaukee and each of the

Individual Defendants reside in Wisconsin. It appears that the events and statements giving rise

to the securities claims in this action primarily occurred in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. See

Def. Br., Dkt. 50 at 5 (“The Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

in connection with Badger Meter’s internal sales trends, backlog, project timing, demand

conditions, forecasting, and financial reporting,” “matters [which] were managed and analyzed

from Milwaukee, and the public statements challenged in the Complaint were prepared and

issued from there.”); see also In re Collins & Aikman Corp. Sec. Litig., 438 F. Supp. 2d 392, 396

(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“[I]t is well-settled that ‘[m]isrepresentations are deemed to occur in the

district where the misrepresentations are issued or the truth is withheld[.]’”). Thus, it is

reasonable to expect that relevant documents and witnesses would also be located in the Eastern

District of Wisconsin. See D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006)

(“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.”)

       Moreover, while a plaintiff’s choice of forum is ordinarily entitled to deference, this

factor has less weight when, as here, the Lead Plaintiff is not a resident of the original forum.

See Royal & Sun All. Ins., 202 F. Supp. 3d at 410. The degree of deference to a plaintiff’s choice

of forum depends on, among other things, the plaintiff’s residence in relation to the chosen

forum, the availability of witnesses or evidence in the forum district, and other reasons relating

to convenience or expense. Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 71–72 (2d Cir. 2001).


                                                   3


         Case 1:26-cv-04660-VEC                 Document 59           Filed 10/02/26          Page 4 of 4


As far as the Court can tell, Lead Plaintiff has no direct connection to this forum, 1 and in any  0F


event, does not oppose Defendants’ request to transfer this case.

         Accordingly, the Court concludes that convenience and justice would be best served if

this case proceeds in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The Court respectfully directs the Clerk

of Court to TRANSFER this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 1406(a), and to CLOSE the case. Because Lead Plaintiff

does not oppose Defendants’ transfer request, the Court hereby waives the seven-day waiting

period specified in Local Civil Rule 83.1 and directs the Clerk to effectuate transfer immediately.


         SO ORDERED.
                                                                     ________________________
Date: October 2, 2026                                                   VALERIE CAPRONI
      New York, New York                                              United States District Judge


1
       While Lead Plaintiff is entitled to its choice of counsel, the fact that Lead Plaintiff’s counsel is located in
New York cannot dictate venue at Defendants’ expense, nor does it outweigh the other factors that support transfer.

                                                           4