Payton v. Williamsburg

Background

Jonathan Payton, proceeding without a lawyer, sued “Apple Williamsburg” and Apple Inc. He alleges that an employee at the Apple Store in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, deleted data from his iPhone. He seeks injunctive relief and damages. Payton purportedly invoked federal-question jurisdiction, but the court said his claims appeared instead to arise under state law and potentially to proceed under diversity jurisdiction.

Venue analysis

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the general federal venue statute. It explained that venue may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. The court understood that the defendants could reside in multiple federal districts, including both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. It also understood that a substantial part, if not all, of the alleged events occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, which lies in the Eastern District of New York.

The court therefore concluded that the Eastern District was a proper venue under § 1391(b)(2). It then applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer from one proper federal venue to another for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Because the alleged events occurred in the Eastern District, the court reasoned that relevant documents and witnesses would likely be located there, making that district more convenient.

Ruling

The court directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order closes the action in the Southern District of New York; summonses will not issue from that court. The transferee court will decide whether Payton may proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order addressed venue and transfer, not the merits of Payton’s claims.