Fan v. California University – Silicon Valley

Background

Lingling Fan filed this action without a lawyer. She asserted claims under California state law and the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against California University – Silicon Valley (CUSV), Ivie Chen, and Philip Yang. The opinion states that Fan does not reside in the Southern District of New York and that she provided a Sunnyvale, California address for all defendants.

Fan alleged that the defendants defrauded her, refused to provide her diploma and official transcripts, and misled her about a college program at CUSV. She also alleged that she could not obtain a professional license in New York because of the missing diploma and transcripts and that she experienced an illegal lockout and burglary in New York. The court noted that Fan did not provide facts supporting her assertion that the people responsible for the New York events were aligned with the defendants.

Venue Analysis

Venue is the legally proper place for a case to be heard. For Fan’s state-law claims, the court applied the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The court explained that 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 authority.

For the RICO claims, the court applied 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a), which generally allows a civil RICO case where a defendant resides, is found, has an agent, or conducts business.

The court found that Fan did not allege that any defendant resided in the Southern District of New York or conducted business there. It also found that a substantial part of the actions underlying the claims occurred in Sunnyvale, where CUSV is located and where the individual defendants were employed. The court therefore concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York for either the state-law claims or the RICO claims.

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in the wrong venue, the court may dismiss it or, when justice favors that result, transfer it to a district where it could have been filed. The court determined that the Northern District of California was the proper transferee court because Sunnyvale is located there. In the interest of justice, it transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The transfer order closed the case in the Southern District of New York. The transferee court was left to decide whether Fan may proceed without prepaying fees and to rule on Fan’s motion for a temporary restraining order and motion to seal. The Southern District of New York terminated all pending motions, directed that no summons issue from that court, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.