Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 12, 2019

Alhaj v. Law Office of Ehab Moustafa

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-07584
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Alhaj v. Law Office of Ehab Moustafa: Judge McMahon transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York because defendants and events were in Brooklyn.

Who this affects

Nagibe Alhaj and the named defendants are affected because the case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York, where further procedural decisions were left to the receiving court.

What happened

In Alhaj v. Law Office of Ehab Moustafa, Nagibe Alhaj, representing himself, sued a Brooklyn law firm, an attorney, and two people identified as law-firm employees. The opinion says Alhaj appeared to assert state-law claims based on diversity jurisdiction.

Alhaj alleged that the defendants were located or worked in Brooklyn and that the events underlying his claims occurred there. Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York, so the court concluded that district appeared to be a proper place for the case.

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York in the interest of justice. She also stated that the receiving court would decide whether Alhaj could proceed without paying fees or receive volunteer legal representation; the Southern District case was closed, and an appeal without prepayment of fees was denied.

The detailed version

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

Case
Alhaj v. Law Office of Ehab Moustafa · No. 1:19-cv-07584
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Nov. 12, 2019

Background

Nagibe Alhaj, who was representing himself, brought an action against the Law Office of Ehab Moustafa, Ehab Moustafa, Abraheem Alloa, and “Maryem Secretary.” The opinion states that Alhaj was being treated at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center on Wards Island. His claims appeared to be state-law claims brought under the court’s diversity jurisdiction.

The defendants were described as a Brooklyn law firm, an attorney, and people who appeared to work for the law firm. Alhaj did not allege where the defendants lived, but he alleged that all of them were located or worked in Brooklyn and that the events giving rise to his claims occurred there.

Venue and Transfer

Venue is the proper federal court location for a case. The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action to be filed where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. Because Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York, the court concluded that the Eastern District appeared to be a proper venue based on where the events occurred. The opinion says it was unclear whether the Southern District of New York was a proper venue.

The court also relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It considered that the defendants worked or were located in the Eastern District, the underlying events occurred there, and relevant documents and witnesses were likely located there.

Ruling and Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon concluded that transferring the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York was appropriate. The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action, mail the order to Alhaj, and record service on the docket. It stated that the receiving court would decide whether Alhaj could proceed without prepaying fees and whether a court should request volunteer counsel for him. A summons was not to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order states that the case was closed there.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepayment of fees. The opinion does not decide the underlying merits of Alhaj’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.