Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 20, 2024

Gu v. Chen

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-04612
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Gu v. Chen, Judge Swain transferred the lawsuit to the Eastern District of New York because it was filed in the wrong federal district.

Who this affects

The order affects Feifei Gu and Hang Chen and the other defendants by moving the lawsuit from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. It did not decide the underlying claims.

What happened

Gu v. Chen is a lawsuit by Feifei Gu, who was representing herself, against Hang Chen and others. She brought federal civil-rights and state-law claims seeking money damages, injunctions, and declarations.

The court said Gu did not identify where all defendants lived and alleged that at least two lived in Florida. She alleged that the events involved in her claims occurred in Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District of New York, and did not allege that events occurred in the Southern District of New York.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that the Southern District of New York was not the proper venue and transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York. The court also said summonses would not issue there and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gu v. Chen · No. 1:24-cv-04612
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 20, 2024

Background

Feifei Gu filed this action without a lawyer against Hang Chen and other defendants. She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, seeking damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief.

Venue analysis

Venue is the federal district where a lawsuit may properly be filed. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which generally permits venue where all defendants reside in the same state as the district, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.

The court noted that Gu did not allege where all defendants resided. She did allege that at least two defendants resided in Florida. Because the defendants were not all alleged to reside in New York, the Southern District of New York could not be a proper venue based on the defendants’ residences under Section 1391(b)(1).

Gu alleged that the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York. Gu did not allege facts suggesting that any of the events occurred in the Southern District of New York. The court therefore concluded that the Eastern District, rather than the Southern District, was the proper venue under Section 1391(b)(2).

Ruling and disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in the wrong venue, a court may dismiss it or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The court found that the Southern District was clearly not a proper venue and that it appeared the alleged events took place in the Eastern District. It therefore directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Gu could proceed without prepaying filing fees. Summonses would not issue from the Southern District, and the order closed the action in that court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.