Rylander v. Mary Elizondo Frazier

Background

Yucob Rylander, who resides in Houston, Texas, filed the action without a lawyer. He asserted claims under the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and state law against Mary Elizondo Frazier, Archer Systems LLC, and Brent Coon & Associates. Rylander alleged that he was deprived of more than $1.1 million in settlement proceeds from litigation in Texas. He also alleged that an order from a Wharton County, Texas, proceeding was used to portray him as a vexatious litigant in other proceedings in Texas.

Rylander argued that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because the defendants allegedly sent the disputed court order to Intercontinental Terminals Company LLC, a nonparty corporation headquartered in New York.

Venue analysis

Under the general federal venue statute, a civil case may generally be filed where all defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act also permits a claim to be brought where a defendant resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts business.

The court concluded that venue was not proper in New York under the general venue statute because all defendants were not residents of New York. The court also stated that venue did not appear proper based on the location of the events giving rise to the claims. For purposes of the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the court determined that the allegations did not show that Frazier, described as a Texas attorney, or the law firm outside New York, transacted their affairs in New York. The alleged transmission of an order to New York was insufficient.

Transfer

The court explained that even when venue is proper, it may transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice to a district where the case could have been brought. It found that venue was proper in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, because the defendants resided there and the events underlying the claims occurred there. Transfer was appropriate because the events occurred in Texas, the parties resided there, and Rylander had a pending action involving one of the same defendants in that district.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Rylander could proceed without prepaying fees, and that no summons would issue from the Southern District of New York. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the transfer order.