Tarantola v. The City Of New York, et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth above and in the interest of convenience for the parties and witnesses, this Court orders the Clerk of Court to transfer this action to the Eastern District of New York. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 10/6/2015) (mro)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.
WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, District Judge:
By order dated September 24, 2015, (ECF No. 7), this Court sua sponte directed
PlaintiffKoron Tarantola to show cause why this federal civil rights action should not be
transferred to the Eastern District ofNew York.
Tarantola's attorney filed this action in the Southern District of New York, even
though his client resides in the Eastern District of New York and all of the events described in
the Complaint, including Tarantola's arrest, occurred there. And the filing in this District was
not even a matter of convenience for Tarantola's attorney (although that is not a proper
consideration for venue) because his office is in Brooklyn, New York. In the Complaint,
Tarantola asserts that venue is proper because "this is the District where the claim arose,
especially with respect to the managers of the City of New York and the New York City Police
Department who [sic] allow the unlawful acts complained of to continue." (Compl. 14). In
response to this Court's order to show cause, Tarantola argues that the "supervisors of the New
York City Police Department, and other government official who [sic] in turn oversee those
police officials" are located in Manhattan, and that he intends to litigate a Monell claim
implicating a practice of police misconduct. (ECF No. 8, at 4.)
"Even when venue is proper in the Southern District of New York, the Court may
transfer an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)." Solar v. Annetts, 707 F. Supp. 2d 437, 441
(S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citation omitted). That section grants courts the power to "transfer any civil
action to any other district or division" where the case may have been brought. 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a). "[O]nce a district court makes a threshold showing that the action could have been
brought in the transferee district, which is not in dispute here, the focus shifts to 'determinations
of convenience,' which are 'considered on a case-by-case basis."' Synca Direct, Inc. v. SCIL
Animal Care Co., No. 15-cv-2332, 2015 WL 3883281, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2015). The
Court may consider such factors as (1) the plaintiff's 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, [and] (7) the relative means of the parties." D.H.
Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2006).
In this case, the likely witnesses, documentation, parties, and relevant facts are all
centered in the Eastern District of New York. Engrafting a Monell claim does not change that.
The only thing that changes is that police officers in Staten Island may be inconvenienced and
Tarantola's attorney can artificially inflate his presumptive hourly rate. See Simmons v. New
York City Transit Auth., 575 F.3d 170, 172 (2d Cir. 2009) (finding presumption in favor of
calculating attorney's fees based on prevailing hourly rates where the district court sits); see also
Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, 552 F.3d 182, 190 (2d
For the reasons set forth above and in the interest of convenience for the parties
and witnesses, this Court orders the Clerk of Court to transfer this action to the Eastern District
October 6, 2015
New York, New York
~ ..~~~ ~.#>Sk~
WILLIAM H. PAULEY III ((-.
All Counsel of Record via ECF.
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?