Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco
- Morrison
- 3:25-cv-03758
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Morrison transferred the case to California, denied an extension motion, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Anna Shteerman’s case was transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Northern District of California. Her request for more time to submit evidence in the New York court was denied, and her remaining motions were left for the California court. The order also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
What happened
In Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco, Anna Shteerman, representing herself, sued over real property in San Francisco, California. She argued that New York was a proper location because she experienced financial and emotional effects there and said litigating in San Francisco would burden her.
The court found that all defendants were located in San Francisco, a substantial part of the events occurred there, and the property was there. It therefore determined that the Northern District of California was the proper federal court for the case.
Judge Nina R. Morrison ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to that court. She denied Shteerman’s motion for more time to submit evidence in the Eastern District of New York, reserved her remaining motions for the receiving court, and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Shteerman v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:25-cv-03758
- Morrison
- Apr. 22, 2025
Background
Anna Shteerman, appearing without a lawyer, filed this action in the Eastern District of New York. The case concerns real property located in San Francisco, California, and the opinion states that the defendants are located there. Shteerman invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and paid the filing fee.
The court had previously ordered Shteerman to explain why the case should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. After receiving additional time, she filed a response. She argued that venue was proper in New York because she paid notices, fines, and attorney fees there; experienced lost rental income and emotional distress there; and managed the property sale there. She also argued that litigating in San Francisco would burden her and repeated allegations that San Francisco’s city government and court system were biased against her.
Legal standard
The court explained that under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a case filed in the wrong federal district must be dismissed or, in the interest of justice, transferred to a district where it could have been brought. The court also noted that even if venue were proper in New York, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) allows a court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. A court may make such a transfer on its own initiative.
Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or where a substantial part of the property involved in the action is located.
Ruling
The court concluded that venue was proper in the Northern District of California because all defendants were located in San Francisco, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the action occurred there, and the property at issue was located there. It directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the Northern District of California under § 1406(a).
The court denied Shteerman’s motion for an extension of time to submit evidence in the Eastern District of New York. It reserved her remaining motions for the Northern District of California. Although Shteerman had paid the filing fee, the court also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Judge Nina R. Morrison signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.