Schwartz v. The New York State Insurance Fund et al
Filing
13
ORDER: SO ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under § 1404(a). The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and to mark this case closed. 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 in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 11/13/2017. (CM to pro se plaintiff) (Florio, Lisa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------X
AMARA B. SCHWARTZ,
FILED
CLERK
11/13/2017 3:54 pm
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Plaintiff,
-against-
ORDER
16-CV-04527(JMA)(SIL)
THE NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND,
RYAN MCGRATH, ALYCE SIEGEL,
MARILYN LARRETTA,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
Pro se plaintiff Amara B. Schwartz (“plaintiff”) brings this action against the New York
State Insurance Fund, Ryan McGrath, Alyce Siegel, and Marilyn Larretta (collectively,
“defendants”) seeking to challenge, inter alia, discrimination in employment based on her race
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.
Plaintiff alleges that the location of her place of employment as well as the location of all the
defendants is 100 Church Street, New York. (Compl. ¶¶ B-C.) Plaintiff paid the $400 filing fee
to commence this action.
Under the general venue provision:
a civil action may be brought 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). Here, the vast majority of events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims are
alleged to have occurred at 100 Church Street, New York. This address is located in New York
County, New York and New York County is within the Southern District of New York. See 28
U.S.C. § 112(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is therefore proper in the Southern
District of New York.
In determining whether to transfer to another district where the action might have been
brought, courts should consider: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the convenience of the
witnesses and parties, (3) the location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to
sources of proof, (4) the locus of operative facts, (5) the availability of process to compel the
attendance of unwilling witnesses, and (6) the relative means of the parties. See New York
Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010). Although
a plaintiff’s choice of forum generally should be disturbed only if the balance of factors weighs
heavily in favor of transfer, that choice is accorded less deference where the operative facts did
not occur there. See Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 2001).
In this case, the Court concludes, based on the totality of circumstances, that it is in the
interest of justice to transfer this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.1 Specifically, there appears to be little connection
between this lawsuit and the Eastern District of New York other than plaintiff’s residence in
Nassau County and a few events concerning a worksite in Jamaica, Queens. However, the vast
majority of the events giving rise to her alleged claims have taken place in the Southern District
of New York.
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under § 1404(a). The Clerk of the Court is
further directed to mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and to mark this case closed.
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 in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose
1
On September 12, 2017, the Court issued an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE directing plaintiff to file a
letter with the Court by October 3, 2017 if she opposes transfer of this case to the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiff has not filed anything with the Court since the September 12, 2017 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.
2
of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
Dated: November 13, 2017
Central Islip, New York
SO ORDERED.
/s/ (JMA)
Joan M. Azrack
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?