Ybarra v. Jones
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-07746
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ybarra v. Jones, Judge Swain transferred the action from New York to Minnesota without deciding the claims’ merits.
The order affects Steve Salvador Ybarra and Sharon Jones by moving Ybarra’s action from the Southern District of New York to the District of Minnesota. It also affects any pending motions in the New York case, which the court terminated, while leaving fee-waiver questions for the Minnesota court.
What happened
Steve Salvador Ybarra v. Sharon Jones involved Ybarra’s claims against Sharon Jones, an attorney practicing in Minnesota who represents Ybarra’s estranged wife in a Minnesota custody and divorce proceeding. Ybarra, who lives in California and was representing himself, had also filed a substantially similar action in Minnesota.
Ybarra argued that New York was a proper location because money connected to the alleged conspiracy passed through New York banks. The court assumed New York might be proper for some claims but concluded that Minnesota was the better and proper location because the alleged conduct occurred there, Jones and the alleged co-conspirators reside there, and the earlier similar action was already pending there.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the action to the federal court in Minnesota under the federal transfer statute. The New York court closed the action, terminated all pending motions, directed that summonses not issue, and left any decision about proceeding without paying filing fees to the Minnesota court; it also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Ybarra v. Jones · No. 1:25-cv-07746
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Steve Salvador Ybarra, who resides in California and is representing himself, sued Sharon Jones, an attorney practicing law in Minnesota. The complaint says that Jones represents Ybarra’s estranged wife, Michell Ybarra, in an ongoing child-custody and divorce proceeding in Minnesota. Ybarra had previously filed a substantially similar action in the federal court in Minnesota, involving Jones and other defendants. The earlier related proceeding was No. 25-CV-1948 in the District of Minnesota.
Ybarra asserted similar claims in both actions under the civil provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly called RICO, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
Venue and Transfer Analysis
Venue is the federal district where a case may properly be heard. The court explained that RICO permits a civil case against a person in a district where that person resides, is found, has an agent, or conducts business. On that basis, the court determined that venue for the RICO claims was proper in Minnesota, where Jones resides.
The court explained that the general federal venue statute applies to the claims under Sections 1983 and 1985. Ybarra argued that New York was proper because money allegedly transferred as part of the alleged conspiracy passed through New York correspondent or custodial banks. Without deciding the merits of that argument, the court assumed that New York could be a proper venue for those claims.
Even if New York were a proper venue, the court concluded that transfer to Minnesota 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 identified several reasons: the alleged conspiracy and underlying conduct occurred in Minnesota; Jones and the alleged co-conspirators reside there; Ybarra had already filed a substantially similar action there that remained pending; Ybarra does not reside in New York; and the operative events did not occur in New York. The court also noted that the first-filed forum is generally favored when substantially similar actions are pending in different districts.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. It did not decide the underlying RICO, Section 1983, or Section 1985 claims. The court left the question of whether Ybarra could proceed without prepaying fees to the Minnesota court, stated that summonses would not issue from the New York court, closed the action in New York, and terminated all pending motions.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.