Peek v. American Express Company

Background

Keith Peek brought the action against American Express under the Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666. The opinion states that Peek represented himself and resides in Gainesville, Georgia, in Hall County. He alleged that he had an American Express credit card with current charges totaling $56,227.73. According to an identity-theft report he referenced, he discovered in August 2024 that fraudulent charges had appeared on the account beginning in June 2023. He contended that American Express failed to replace the card and allowed additional unauthorized charges.

Peek filed the case in the Southern District of New York. He alleged that American Express resided there because it had a registered agent for service in that district.

Venue and Transfer Analysis

The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York based on where the events occurred because Peek identified Gainesville, Georgia, in his identity-theft report and nothing suggested that the relevant events took place in New York.

The court also considered transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits a court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It found that the underlying events occurred in Hall County, Georgia, where Peek resides. Hall County is in the Northern District of Georgia, and the court determined that the claims arose there and that the Northern District of Georgia was a more appropriate forum. The court gave less weight to Peek’s choice of New York because he did not reside there and his claims arose outside that district.

Disposition

The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Section 1404(a). The clerk was directed to carry out the transfer. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Peek could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The New York court ordered that no summons issue from that court and stated that the order closed the case in the Southern District of New York.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion did not decide whether Peek’s Fair Credit Billing Act claims were legally valid or whether American Express violated that statute.