Coutain v. Keystone Property Management, Inc.

Background

Allison Cindy Coutain brought this pro se action against 32 defendants. The complaint was unclear, but the court understood Coutain to be asserting civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and employment-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Venue analysis

Title VII has a specific venue provision. The court explained that Coutain alleged the unlawful employment actions occurred in Miami Beach, Florida, which is in the Southern District of Florida. The court therefore determined that venue for the Title VII claims was proper there.

The court also addressed the general federal venue statute governing the § 1983 claims. Coutain did not plead the residences of all 32 defendants. Although she provided Miami Beach addresses for many defendants and identified defendants in several other states and locations, she did not allege that all defendants resided in the same state. The court therefore concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York under the provision allowing suit where all defendants reside in the same state. The court also stated that nothing in the complaint suggested that events giving rise to the claims occurred in New York, while the complaint and attachments suggested that significant events occurred in Miami Beach. It therefore appeared that venue for the other claims might also be proper in the Southern District of Florida.

Transfer

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another district where it might have been brought when the transfer would promote the convenience of the parties and witnesses and serve the interests of justice. The court considered the alleged location of the employment actions, the likely location of events underlying the constitutional claims, and the expected location of relevant documents and witnesses. It concluded that the Southern District of Florida appeared to be the more convenient forum.

Order

The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Clerk was directed to close the case in the Southern District of New York, and no summons was to issue from that court. Decisions on Coutain’s two motions for protective orders were left to the transferee court, and all pending motions were terminated in the New York court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not decide the underlying civil-rights or employment-discrimination claims.