Lavi v. DWS
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07501
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lavi v. DWS, Chief Judge Swain denied reconsideration because transfer ended this court’s jurisdiction and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Pierre Lavi, whose motion for reconsideration was denied and whose fee-free status for an appeal was denied.
What happened
In Lavi v. DWS, Pierre Lavi, representing himself and without paying filing fees, brought amended claims of financial misconduct against DWS. The court had ordered the case transferred to the Western District of Missouri, where it was received and given a new docket number.
Lavi later sent letters challenging the transfer order. The New York court explained that transferring a case ends the transferring court’s authority over it after the receiving court gets the case papers. Because the Missouri court had received the case before Lavi sought reconsideration, the New York court could not review the transfer.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Lavi’s motion for reconsideration. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Lavi v. DWS · No. 1:22-cv-07501
- Laura Swain
- June 28, 2024
Background
Pierre Lavi, who was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying filing fees, filed an amended complaint asserting financial-misconduct claims solely against DWS. The court had previously ordered the case transferred to the Western District of Missouri under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. The Clerk electronically transferred the case on May 31, 2024, and the Western District of Missouri acknowledged receipt on June 12, 2024. That court assigned the matter docket number 2:24-CV-00394.
Lavi submitted letters on June 18 and June 20, 2024. The court treated them as challenging the May 31 transfer order. The opinion notes that Lavi’s original complaint had also named Deutsch Bank, but the amended complaint asserted claims solely against DWS.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that transferring a case removes the transferring court’s authority to act in the case. The transferring court retains authority to review the transfer only when the party seeking review asks for a stay before the receiving court’s clerk receives the case papers. Here, the case had already been electronically transferred, and the Western District of Missouri had acknowledged receipt, before Lavi filed his first motion for reconsideration on June 18.
Because the New York court no longer had authority over the action, it stated that Lavi would have to challenge the transfer in the Western District of Missouri.
Ruling
The court denied Lavi’s motion for reconsideration. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.