Macbagito v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04062
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Macbagito v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Judge Swain transferred Macbagito’s federal wage, credit-reporting, and state-law action from New York to Maryland.
Charlotte Macbagito’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the District of Maryland. The three defendants remain named in the action, and the Maryland court will decide whether Macbagito may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Macbagito v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Charlotte Macbagito, representing herself, sued PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Mizuho Securities USA LLC, and MBO Partners, Inc. She alleged that the defendants misclassified her as an independent contractor, conducted an unauthorized background check, and violated state laws while she lived and worked in Maryland.
The court concluded that Macbagito had not shown that the Southern District of New York was the proper venue. It also concluded that Maryland was a proper and more convenient venue because the alleged harm occurred there and relevant witnesses and documents were likely there.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The New York court closed the case, directed that no summons issue there, and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Macbagito v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP · No. 1:25-cv-04062
- Laura Swain
- June 3, 2025
Background
Charlotte Macbagito brought a self-represented action against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Mizuho Securities USA LLC, and MBO Partners, Inc. She asserted claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and state law. Macbagito alleged that she had an employment relationship with the defendants while residing in Maryland; that PwC was the primary worksite employer, Mizuho was the end client, and MBO was a payroll processor; that the defendants misclassified her as an independent contractor; and that they conducted an unauthorized background check.
Venue analysis
The court applied the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Macbagito did not provide the defendants’ addresses or allege facts showing that at least one defendant resided in the Southern District of New York and that all defendants resided in New York. Her allegation that the defendants conducted business operations there was not enough to show that the court had personal jurisdiction over them for these claims.
The court also found no facts showing that a substantial part of the events underlying the claims occurred in the Southern District of New York. Macbagito was not employed there, and she did not allege that the defendants made employment-related decisions there. The court stated that the harm was likely experienced at her residence in Annapolis, Maryland. It further concluded that venue was proper in the District of Maryland because substantial events occurred there and the defendants likely became subject to Maryland’s jurisdiction by hiring Macbagito there.
Transfer decision
The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) permits transfer to another district where the case could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. Applying that standard, the court found transfer appropriate because Macbagito experienced the alleged harm in Maryland, the defendants were likely subject to Maryland’s jurisdiction, and relevant documents and witnesses were reasonably expected to be there.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Macbagito could continue without prepaying filing fees. The court directed that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York and closed the case in that court. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.