Ybarra v. Jones
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-03848
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Ybarra v. Jones, Chief Judge Swain transferred a pro se lawsuit from New York to Minnesota because the events occurred there and a nearly identical case was already pending there.
Pro se litigants who file lawsuits in federal courts far from where the defendant lives and where the alleged events occurred, particularly those with overlapping cases already pending in another district. Parties in family law disputes who attempt to bring related federal claims in distant venues.
What happened
In Ybarra v. Jones (No. 25-CV-7746), California resident Steve Salvador Ybarra filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Sharon Jones, a Minnesota attorney who represents his estranged wife in an ongoing child custody and divorce case in Minnesota. Ybarra claims Jones and others engaged in a conspiracy, bringing claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and two civil rights statutes (42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985). He argued that New York was a proper location for the lawsuit because money allegedly transferred as part of the conspiracy passed through New York banks.
The court assumed, without deciding, that New York venue might technically be permissible for the civil rights claims based on Ybarra's New York bank theory. However, the court identified multiple reasons why Minnesota was the more appropriate location: the defendant Jones lives and works in Minnesota; the alleged conspiracy took place in Minnesota; and Ybarra had already filed a nearly identical lawsuit in the District of Minnesota that remains pending. Federal law also gives less weight to a plaintiff's chosen location when the plaintiff does not live there and the events did not happen there — both true here.
Chief Judge Swain ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, closing it in New York. The court terminated all pending motions and directed the clerk to carry out the transfer. The question of whether Ybarra can proceed without paying court filing fees was left for the Minnesota court to decide. The court also certified that any appeal of this transfer order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ybarra v. Jones · No. 0:25-cv-03848
- Eric Tostrud
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Steve Salvador Ybarra, a California resident proceeding without a lawyer (pro se), filed this action in the Southern District of New York against Sharon Jones, an attorney practicing in Minnesota. According to the complaint, Jones represents Ybarra's estranged wife, Michell Ybarra, in an ongoing child custody and divorce proceeding in Minnesota.
Ybarra brings claims under three federal statutes: (1) the civil provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1965; (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations; and (3) 42 U.S.C. § 1985, which addresses conspiracies to interfere with civil rights. The opinion does not detail the specific factual allegations underlying these claims beyond the Minnesota custody and divorce context.
Ybarra had previously filed a substantially similar action in the District of Minnesota — Ybarra v. Legal Assis. Of Dakota Cnty., No. 25-CV-1948 (MKK) (DJF) (D. Minn.) ("Ybarra I") — naming Jones and additional defendants including his employer and Minnesota judges. That case remains pending.
Venue Analysis
RICO Venue
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a), a civil RICO claim may be brought in any district where the defendant resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts affairs. Because Jones resides and practices in Minnesota, venue for the RICO claims is proper in the District of Minnesota.
Section 1983 and Section 1985 Venue
Venue for § 1983 and § 1985 claims is governed by the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which permits suit in: (1) a district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state; (2) a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) as a fallback, any district with personal jurisdiction over a defendant.
Ybarra argued that the Southern District of New York was proper under § 1391(b)(2) because money allegedly transferred in furtherance of the conspiracy "cleared and settled through New York correspondent/custodian banks." The court, without ruling on the merits of this venue theory, assumed for purposes of the order that New York venue could be proper under § 1391(b)(2).
Transfer Analysis Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
Even where venue is proper, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) permits a district court to transfer a case to another district "[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice." Courts may initiate such a transfer on their own initiative (i.e., without a motion from either party).
The court identified four reasons supporting transfer to Minnesota:
1. Proper RICO venue in Minnesota: As described above, venue for the RICO claims is proper in Minnesota where Jones resides.
2. Operative events in Minnesota: Under § 1391(b)(2), the underlying conduct supporting Ybarra's claims — the alleged conspiracy and its participants — is located in Minnesota. Although Ybarra pointed to New York bank clearing activity, the court found the core conduct occurred in Minnesota.
3. First-filed rule: A strong presumption favors the forum where a substantially similar action was first filed. Ybarra I, filed earlier in the District of Minnesota, involves similar claims against overlapping defendants. This presumption favors Minnesota.
4. Plaintiff's forum choice entitled to less weight: A plaintiff's selection of a forum receives less deference when the plaintiff does not reside in that forum and the operative facts did not occur there. Ybarra lives in California, not New York, and the events occurred in Minnesota.
Disposition
Chief Judge Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The action is closed in the Southern District of New York, and all pending motions are terminated. No summonses shall issue from the New York court.
The court deferred to the Minnesota court the question of whether Ybarra may proceed without prepaying filing fees (Ybarra did not pay fees or request a fee waiver when filing this case).
Finally, the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this transfer order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denied Ybarra in forma pauperis status (the right to proceed without prepaying appeal fees) for purposes of any appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.