Zoccoli v. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE GARDEN STATE UNDERWRITERS & DRIVE NEW JERSEY

Background

The court had previously dismissed James C. Zoccoli’s self-represented action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court had not determined that it had legal authority to hear the case. The court gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts establishing both federal jurisdiction and proper venue. After granting two additional 30-day extensions, the court received his amended complaint on January 21, 2025.

The court construed the amended complaint as asserting state-law claims under diversity jurisdiction. Zoccoli appeared to allege that he was a citizen of New York and that the defendant was a citizen of Ohio. The court noted, however, that he still did not address whether his claims exceeded the more-than-$75,000 amount required for diversity jurisdiction.

Venue Analysis

Venue is the federal district where a case may properly be heard. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which generally permits a civil action to be brought where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

The amended complaint appeared to allege that the defendant insurance company was headquartered in Mayfield, Ohio, in the Northern District of Ohio. It also appeared to allege that the defendant’s activity involving insurance for vessels in New Jersey could support treating the defendant as residing in New Jersey for venue purposes. Zoccoli alleged that significant events occurred at the Channel Club Marina in Monmouth Beach, New Jersey. The court therefore concluded that the District of New Jersey was clearly a proper venue based on where the events occurred.

The amended complaint also appeared to allege that some events occurred in waters off Staten Island. The court explained that the Eastern District of New York, and potentially the Southern District of New York because of overlapping waters, might also be proper venues. But Zoccoli alleged no facts suggesting that the defendant resided in the Southern District of New York, and the court found that the key events appeared to have occurred in New Jersey rather than in its district.

Transfer Decision

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a case to another federal district where it could have been brought when the transfer would serve convenience and the interests of justice. The court considered the alleged location of the important events, the likely location of relevant documents and witnesses, and the possibility that the defendant resided in New Jersey. It determined that the District of New Jersey appeared to be the more convenient forum.

The court therefore directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. It deferred to that court the question whether any federal district court has subject-matter jurisdiction. The Southern District of New York closed the action in that court, directed that no summons issue from it, and denied self-represented litigant status for purposes of an appeal without paying filing fees because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.