Madej v. Synchrony Bank

Background

Jakub Madej filed this Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Synchrony Bank. He originally sued an incorrectly named defendant in the Eastern District of New York and later filed this action in the Northern District of California against PayPal Credit, which was substituted with Synchrony Bank. The California complaint alleged at least 40 robocalls in November 2020. The New York case involved 572 alleged robocalls between November 2020 and March 2021.

Synchrony moved to dismiss the California case for improper venue, transfer it to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), or stay it until the New York case was resolved. Madej, who was proceeding without a lawyer, argued that Synchrony had waived its venue defense and that transfer and a stay were improper.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Synchrony waived its improper-venue defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) because it did not raise the defense in a pre-answer motion or in its answer. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss on that ground.

The court separately held that Synchrony had not made the required threshold showing for transfer. A case may be transferred only to a district where it could originally have been brought, meaning a court with subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and proper venue. The court found that merely citing the New York complaint was insufficient to establish that requirement. It denied the transfer request without prejudice, allowing Synchrony to renew it later if appropriate.

The court nevertheless found that a stay was appropriate for judicial efficiency because the New York action involved the same parties and issues. It granted the motion on that basis.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted in part and denied in part Synchrony’s motion. The court denied dismissal for improper venue, denied transfer without prejudice, and granted a stay pending the outcome of the New York action. For statistical purposes only, the court administratively closed the case. The parties must file a joint status report within 14 days after the New York action is resolved and, if appropriate, file an administrative motion to reopen this case. The order terminated Docket Number 38.