Ramjas v. Kersh

Background

Rajiv P. Ramjas, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims against Tamara Kersh and other defendants. He alleged violations of federal constitutional rights, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and state law. Ramjas stated that the events underlying his claims occurred in Queens County and possibly Nassau County, New York. He also provided addresses in those counties for many defendants.

Venue and transfer analysis

The court applied the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. That statute generally permits a civil action to be filed where defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither of those options applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority.

The court concluded that venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York because Queens and Nassau Counties are located there and the alleged events occurred in those counties. The court said it could assume, for purposes of its analysis, that at least one defendant resided in the Southern District of New York and that venue might also have been proper there. Even so, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a court to transfer a case to another proper district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

The court found transfer appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Queens and Nassau Counties, where Ramjas resides and where most defendants appeared to be located. It therefore reasonably expected that relevant witnesses and documents would also be there. The court determined that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be the more convenient forum.

Disposition

The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Clerk of Court was directed to carry out the transfer. The Southern District of New York stated that the action was closed in that court, that summonses would not issue from that court, and that the transferee court would decide whether Ramjas could proceed without prepaying fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The order addressed venue and convenience only; the opinion does not decide whether Ramjas’s constitutional, Fair Credit Reporting Act, or state-law claims have merit.