Shen-Shampas v. Rabow
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:25-cv-01802
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Shen-Shampas v. Rabow, Judge Ramos transferred the case to California because venue was proper there and the parties agreed.
John H. Shen-Sampas, Michael Rabow, Justin Sewell, and Becca Wallace; their action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of California.
What happened
Shen-Shampas v. Rabow involved John H. Shen-Sampas’s claim that Michael Rabow, Justin Sewell, and Becca Wallace published false statements about his curriculum vitae in connection with a medical-residency application. He brought the claims under California Civil Code §§ 44–48.9 and represented himself.
The court considered whether the case belonged in the Southern District of New York or the Northern District of California. The defendants were located in San Francisco, the complaint identified San Francisco as the place where the events occurred, and the parties agreed that venue was proper in the Northern District of California.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and directed the Clerk of Court to close the Southern District of New York case. The order did not decide whether the alleged statements were false or whether the defendants violated California law.
The detailed version
- Shen-Shampas v. Rabow · No. 1:25-cv-01802
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 28, 2025
Background
John H. Shen-Sampas, representing himself, sued Michael Rabow, Justin Sewell, and Becca Wallace. He alleged that they violated California Civil Code §§ 44–48.9 by publishing false statements about his curriculum vitae submitted with his application for medical residency.
The court ordered the parties to explain why the case should not be transferred to the Northern District of California. Shen-Sampas and the defendants agreed that venue was proper there.
Transfer Analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a civil case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court explained that transfer decisions consider factors including the location of the events, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, access to evidence, the forum’s familiarity with the governing law, and the overall interests of justice.
The court concluded that transfer was appropriate. According to the complaint, the defendants were located in San Francisco, California, within the Northern District of California. The complaint identified San Francisco as the place where the events occurred, and the record did not suggest that any substantial part of the events occurred in the Southern District of New York. The court therefore concluded that the Northern District of California was a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2). The parties’ agreement that venue was proper there also supported the transfer.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was directed to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and close the case in the Southern District of New York. The court did not resolve the merits of Shen-Sampas’s claims or decide whether the defendants violated California law.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.