Getty v. National Oil Corporation Libya

Background

Jomode Elie Getty, who was representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees, sued National Oil Corporation Libya and Honeywell. He alleged that National Oil Corporation Libya used the name Murzuq Oil and used his business ideas, harming his business activities. He also alleged that Honeywell won a refinery project in Libya after abusing a dominant market position and paying kickbacks to National Oil Corporation Libya management.

The court had previously directed Getty to correct problems in his original complaint and gave him permission to amend. Getty submitted a letter but did not file another amended pleading. The court treated that letter as his amended complaint and directed the clerk to refile it accordingly.

Honeywell Claims

Getty stated that he wanted to withdraw his claims against Honeywell and pursue them separately. The court treated his request as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the claims were withdrawn before the complaint was served, the court dismissed Getty’s claims against Honeywell without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The clerk was directed to terminate Honeywell as a defendant.

The court also noted possible problems with Getty bringing claims based on harm to Murzuq Oil or Murzuq Oil and Gas Corporation. The opinion stated that those entities might be necessary parties for some claims and that a company cannot represent itself without a lawyer. The court did not resolve those issues.

Foreign-Sovereign Immunity

Getty argued that National Oil Corporation Libya was a commercial company rather than a foreign sovereign and, alternatively, that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s commercial-activity exception applied. The court had previously ruled that National Oil Corporation Libya was immune unless an exception applied, and that Getty had not then alleged facts showing that the commercial-activity exception applied.

In this order, the court did not decide Getty’s arguments about the exception. It stated that the venue issue provided a basis for resolving the matter without addressing that question.

Venue and Transfer

Venue means the federal district where a case may properly be heard. Getty did not provide a home address, the complaint did not show that he lived in New York, and he did not allege that events underlying his claims occurred there. The court also noted that the complaint did not clearly identify the legal basis for the claims.

The complaint referred to conduct in Houston, Texas, and listed a Houston address for Getty’s U.S. corporation. The court therefore found that Houston appeared to be a place where some events underlying the claims occurred. It concluded that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York and that the Southern District of Texas appeared more appropriate.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court transferred the remaining claims against National Oil Corporation Libya to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. This transfer did not decide the merits of those claims.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Getty’s claims against Honeywell without prejudice, directed the clerk to refile Getty’s letter as the amended complaint, and transferred the action consisting of the remaining claims against National Oil Corporation Libya to the Southern District of Texas. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.