Friedeberg v. The Rand McNally Corp.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04001
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Friedeberg v. Rand McNally, Judge Swain transferred Donna L. Friedeberg’s action to Connecticut because that district appeared more convenient.
Donna L. Friedeberg’s action against Rand McNally Corp. was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of Connecticut. The Connecticut court will decide whether Friedeberg may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Friedeberg v. Rand McNally Corp., Donna L. Friedeberg, representing herself, sued Rand McNally Corp. Her claims appeared to involve events in Connecticut, including locations shown on maps attached to her complaint.
The Southern District of New York found that Connecticut was a proper place for the case because a substantial part of the events appeared to have occurred there. It was unclear whether New York was a proper place, and the court concluded that Connecticut would likely be more convenient for witnesses and documents.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The New York court did not issue a summons, closed the action there, left the fee-prepayment question to the Connecticut court, and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Friedeberg v. The Rand McNally Corp. · No. 1:25-cv-04001
- Laura Swain
- June 3, 2025
Background
Donna L. Friedeberg brought a pro se action against Rand McNally Corp. Her 133-page complaint was not signed. The opinion states that her claims appeared to arise from alleged events occurring in multiple Connecticut locations depicted in Rand McNally maps attached to the complaint.
Venue and Transfer Analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the federal statute governing the proper location for filing a civil case. It explained that a case generally may be filed where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, if neither applies, where the defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
The court stated that Friedeberg did not allege facts showing whether Rand McNally Corp. resided in the Southern District of New York. It also stated that she alleged no facts showing that any relevant events occurred in that district. By contrast, Friedeberg resided in Norwich, Connecticut, within the District of Connecticut, and she appeared to allege that a substantial part of the events supporting her claims occurred there. The court therefore concluded that the District of Connecticut was a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(2).
The court then applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Because the alleged events appeared to have occurred in Connecticut, the court considered it reasonable to expect that relevant documents and witnesses would also be there. It concluded that the District of Connecticut appeared to be the more convenient forum.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The order did not decide the merits of Friedeberg’s claims. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether she could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The Southern District of New York also ordered that no summons issue from that court and stated that the action was closed there.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.