Buxbaum v. Travis
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-00687
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Buxbaum v. Travis, Judge Failla transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York and denied fee-free appeal status.
The case brought by Michael Buxbaum against William Travis and Kelly Sabatino was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York; the order did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Buxbaum v. Travis, Michael Buxbaum, representing himself, brought state-law claims against William Travis and Kelly Sabatino. Buxbaum alleged that he resides in Florida and that the defendants reside in Brooklyn, New York. He did not allege where the events behind his claims occurred.
The court found that venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York because the defendants allegedly reside there. It also determined that transferring the case would be more convenient because the complaint did not show a connection to the Southern District of New York.
Judge Failla ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York and closed the case in the Southern District of New York. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Buxbaum v. Travis · No. 1:25-cv-00687
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 12, 2025
Background
Michael Buxbaum, who proceeded without a lawyer, brought state-law claims against William Travis and Kelly Sabatino based on diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. Buxbaum alleged that he resides in Boca Raton, Florida, and that Travis and Sabatino reside in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. The opinion does not state where the events giving rise to the claims occurred.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that federal venue may be proper in a district where all defendants reside, if they reside in the same state, or where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred. Because Buxbaum did not identify where the events occurred, the court could not determine whether venue was proper under the events-based provision. But because he alleged that both defendants reside in Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District of New York, venue was proper there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).
The court then applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to another district where the case could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court stated that nothing in the complaint suggested a connection to the Southern District of New York and concluded that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be the more convenient forum.
Disposition
Judge Failla ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. 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 fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Buxbaum’s underlying state-law claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.