Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 19, 2025

Polyhelper.ai LLC v. United States of America

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-07770
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Polyhelper.ai LLC v. United States, Judge Swain transferred the action from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District.

Who this affects

Polyhelper.ai LLC and the United States. The case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York, and Polyhelper.ai LLC was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

Polyhelper.ai LLC sued the United States in the Southern District of New York. The company said venue was proper there because its principal place of business was in Brooklyn.

The court explained that Brooklyn is in Kings County, which belongs to the Eastern District of New York, not the Southern District. It also found that transferring the case to the Eastern District would be more convenient and served the interests of justice.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the transfer, directed the clerk to send the case to the Eastern District, and ordered that no summons issue from the Southern District. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Polyhelper.ai LLC v. United States of America · No. 1:25-cv-07770
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 19, 2025

Background

Polyhelper.ai LLC brought this action against the United States in the Southern District of New York. The opinion states that the company’s principal place of business is in Brooklyn, New York. The company alleged that venue was proper in the Southern District because Brooklyn is within that district.

Venue and Transfer

The court explained that the general venue statute allows a civil action to be filed in specified districts, including a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. For venue purposes, an entity that can sue and be sued resides in any district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction for the action.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s venue allegation because Brooklyn is in Kings County, and Kings County is within the Eastern District of New York. The court further concluded that transfer was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court stated that the plaintiff appeared to have selected the Southern District in error and that the Eastern District appeared to be a more convenient forum.

Ruling

The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It directed the clerk to transfer the case and ordered that a summons not issue from the Southern District.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. In a footnote, the court stated that a limited liability company cannot proceed without a lawyer and cannot receive permission to proceed without paying filing fees, because only a natural person may receive that status.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.