Roldan v. Bronx Pro Realty

Background

Brendalis Roldan filed this action in New York state court against Bronx Pro Realty and Unimac Developers LLC. She alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The defendants removed the case to the Southern District of New York because the complaint asserted federal claims.

Roldan then filed a motion titled “Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” She asked the court to direct the Southern District of New York to stop proceedings in this case and transfer it to a “neutral federal district.” She also filed a motion seeking an immediate hearing and ruling on her pending request to change venue. Roldan explained that her filings concerned alleged conflicts of interest and the court’s ability to act as a neutral forum. The opinion also treated her filings, to the extent appropriate, as raising a request for judicial recusal, meaning removal of a judge because impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

Mandamus request

The court denied the mandamus motion. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary court order compelling an official or court to perform a required act. The court stated that a district court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus against another district court. It also held that Roldan had not shown the required clear right to relief, plainly defined duty, and lack of another adequate remedy. The court further explained that the statute Roldan cited, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, applies to compelling an officer or employee of the United States or a federal agency to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff, and did not apply here.

Venue-transfer request

The court considered the federal venue-transfer statutes. Section 1404 permits transfer to another district where the case could have been brought when convenience and the interests of justice support transfer. Section 1406 applies when venue is improper and permits dismissal or transfer to a proper district if transfer serves the interests of justice.

The court found that Roldan had not established grounds for transfer under either statute. She did not show that the case could have been brought in another federal district or that the Southern District of New York was an inconvenient forum. The complaint alleged matters that occurred in the district. The court also held that venue was proper because the removal statute provides for removal to the federal district where the state-court action is pending, and Bronx County is within the Southern District of New York.

The court rejected alleged bias as a basis for transferring the case. It stated that Roldan’s arguments about bias were conclusory and did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a venue transfer.

Recusal request

The court also denied the recusal request. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455, a federal judge must disqualify himself when his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and the law identifies certain circumstances in which bias is presumed. The court applied an objective standard based on what a reasonable person knowing all the facts would conclude.

The court found that Roldan had not made a factual showing supporting recusal of District Judge Ho or Judge Aaron. According to the opinion, her allegations appeared to concern state-court proceedings in Bronx Family Court or docket activity and filings in other cases, rather than facts showing that recusal was required in this case.

Disposition

The court denied Roldan’s motion seeking a writ of mandamus. It denied as moot her motion for an immediate hearing and ruling on her motion to transfer venue. The court also denied the recusal request as construed from her filings. The order did not resolve the merits of her Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, or Rehabilitation Act claims.