Anokhin v. Foss Energy Services, Inc.

Background

United Cable Services LLC and Igor Anokhin filed the action without a lawyer, invoking diversity jurisdiction and referring specifically to the Prompt Payment Act. The court understood the complaint to assert state-law claims under diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs sought damages of at least $190,000.

The complaint alleged that Foss Energy Services, Inc. was incorporated and had its principal place of business in Texas, although the principal-place-of-business location was not specified. It alleged that Clarity Telecom, LLC, doing business as Bluepeak, was incorporated in South Dakota and had its principal place of business in Wyoming, also without specifying the location. It appeared to allege that Nathan Downing lived in Texas. The complaint also alleged that United Cable Services LLC was a citizen of New Jersey and that Anokhin was located in New Jersey. The opinion stated that Anokhin appeared to be asserting claims for himself and United Cable Services LLC because he was the only plaintiff who signed the complaint.

Venue analysis

Federal law generally permits a civil action to proceed in a district where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither of those options applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority over that defendant. The court concluded that the complaint did not allege that any defendant resided in New York, so it did not establish venue in the Southern District of New York on that basis.

The complaint did allege that events giving rise to the claims occurred in Sheridan and Casper, Wyoming. Because Wyoming is one federal judicial district, the court determined that the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming was a proper venue under the events-based venue provision.

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong venue or, when justice requires, transfer it to a district where it could have been filed. The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming in the interest of justice.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to make the transfer. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether the plaintiffs could proceed without prepaying fees. Summonses were not to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the action in that court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The order addressed venue and related administrative matters; it did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ underlying claims were legally valid or whether they should prevail.