Islam v. Sammey
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-05441
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Islam v. Sammey, Judge Swain transferred this unpaid-wage case to the Eastern District of New York.
Mohammad T. Islam and the four individuals he sued over unpaid wages; the case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York.
What happened
In Islam v. Sammey, Mohammad T. Islam, who is representing himself, sued four individuals affiliated with a luxury limousine service over unpaid wages. He alleged that the events supporting his claims occurred in Queens County.
The court explained that venue was unclear in the Southern District of New York because Islam did not allege where the defendants were domiciled. It also found that Queens County was the location of the events giving rise to the claims and is in the Eastern District of New York. The court concluded that the Eastern District would be more convenient because the parties worked there and relevant witnesses and documents were expected to be there.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the action transferred to the Eastern District of New York under the federal convenience-transfer statute. The Southern District case was closed, no summons was issued there, and the transferee court was left to decide whether Islam could proceed without paying filing fees. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Islam v. Sammey · No. 1:25-cv-05441
- Laura Swain
- July 1, 2025
Background
Mohammad T. Islam brought this action without a lawyer against Hesham Sammey and three other individuals affiliated with a luxury limousine service in Queens County. He asserted claims for unpaid wages. Islam alleged that the events supporting his claims occurred on June 1, 2025, in Queens County.
Venue Analysis
The court discussed the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Venue may generally be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The complaint listed the defendants’ work addresses in Queens County but did not allege where the individual defendants were domiciled. The court therefore found it unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District under the residence-based provision.
The court also concluded that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District based on the location of the events. Islam alleged that his claims arose in Queens County, and he did not allege that any substantial part of the claims arose in the Southern District. Queens County is in the Eastern District of New York, making that district a proper venue under the events-based provision.
Transfer
Even assuming venue was proper in the Southern District, the court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court found transfer appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Queens County, where Islam and the defendants worked. It also considered it reasonable to expect that the relevant documents and witnesses would be in Queens County. The court therefore determined that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be the more convenient forum.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Clerk of Court was directed to carry out the transfer, and the action was closed in the Southern District of New York. A summons was not to issue from the Southern District. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Islam could proceed without prepaying fees. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
The order did not decide whether Islam was owed wages or otherwise resolve the merits of his claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.