Qiu v. Local 74, United Service Workers Union
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Qiu v. Local 74, Judge Swain transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York because the events and defendants were there.
Weixiong Qiu, Local 74 United Service Workers Union, and the National Labor Relations Board, Region 29; the case will proceed, if at all, in the Eastern District of New York.
What happened
Qiu v. Local 74 United Service Workers Union concerns Weixiong Qiu’s pro se claims arising from his alleged wrongful termination on January 23, 2024, from work at JFK Airport. He sued Local 74 United Service Workers Union and the National Labor Relations Board, Region 29.
The court determined that Queens County, where the alleged events occurred, is in the Eastern District of New York. It also noted that the defendants were identified as being in Queens County and Kings County, both within that district, and that relevant witnesses and documents would likely be there.
The court transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York under the federal convenience-and-justice transfer law, and closed the case in the Southern District of New York. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also directed that no summons issue from her court and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Qiu v. Local 74, United Service Workers Union · No. 1:25-cv-04593
- Laura Swain
- June 4, 2025
Background
Weixiong Qiu brought the action without a lawyer. He asserted claims arising from his alleged wrongful termination on January 23, 2024, from a position working at JFK Airport in Jamaica, Queens County, New York. He sued Local 74 United Service Workers Union and the National Labor Relations Board, Region 29.
Venue Analysis
The court discussed the general federal venue statute, which identifies where a civil action may be filed. The court said it was unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York based on the defendants’ residence because the complaint did not state whether the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction there.
The court concluded that venue was proper under the statute’s provision concerning where the events giving rise to the claims occurred. Qiu alleged that he worked in Queens County, and Queens County is in the Eastern District of New York. The court also noted that the defendants were identified as located in Queens County and Kings County, which are both within the Eastern District of New York.
Transfer and Disposition
The court applied the federal law allowing transfer, even when venue is proper, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It found that transfer was appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Queens County, relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be there, and both defendants were located in that district.
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Clerk was directed to make the transfer. The order states that the transferee court would decide whether Qiu could continue without prepaying filing fees. The Southern District of New York case was closed, no summons was to issue from that court, and the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The court did not decide the merits of Qiu’s wrongful-termination claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.