Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 10, 2025

Friedberg v. Residences 37+39 Tanner Ave

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-08222
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Friedberg v. Residences 37+39 Tanner Ave, Chief Judge Swain transferred the pro se action to Connecticut because the events and defendants were there.

Who this affects

Donna L. Friedberg and the defendants; the case will proceed, if at all, in the District of Connecticut rather than the Southern District of New York.

What happened

In Donna L. Friedberg v. Residences 37+39 Tanner Ave, Donna L. Friedberg sued neighboring residences on Tanner Avenue in Connecticut. She represented herself and alleged that a shadow corporation was forcing women to become promiscuous, along with an incident involving a stun gun, stolen money, and the Norwich Police Department.

The court concluded that the Southern District of New York was not the proper or convenient location for the case. The defendants were in Connecticut, the alleged events occurred there, and the opinion identified no events in New York.

Chief Judge Swain ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. She also directed that no summons issue from the New York court, left any decision about proceeding without paying fees to the Connecticut court, and closed the New York case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Friedberg v. Residences 37+39 Tanner Ave · No. 1:25-cv-08222
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 10, 2025

Background

Donna L. Friedberg brought the action without a lawyer against “residences” on Tanner Avenue in Norwich, Connecticut. The opinion says she alleged that a shadow corporation functioning as a nonprofit was forcing women to become promiscuous. She also alleged an incident involving a stun gun and the theft of $140 and $20 from her, and mentioned the Norwich Police Department.

Venue Analysis

Venue is the federal district where a case may properly be heard. The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred. The court found that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York because the defendants were in Connecticut and the alleged events occurred in Connecticut. The opinion states that Friedberg did not allege any events within the Southern District of New York.

The court also considered transfer for convenience and fairness. It concluded that the underlying events occurred in Connecticut, where all defendants appeared to be located, and that the District of Connecticut appeared to be a more convenient forum.

Ruling

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The New York court left the question of whether Friedberg could continue without prepaying fees to the Connecticut court. It ordered that a summons not issue from the New York court and stated that the order closed the case.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not decide the truth or legal merits of Friedberg’s underlying allegations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.