Beiro v. CFA Institute

Background

Maria Del Pilar Pose Beiro, a citizen of Spain, filed this action against CFA Institute in the Southern District of New York. She proceeded without a lawyer and relied on diversity jurisdiction to assert state-law claims. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.

Beiro alleged that she enrolled in the CFA Program, took the Level 2 examination in 2017, and learned that she had failed. She claimed that a CFA Institute customer-service representative agreed to change her result if she stopped complaining, but that CFA Institute’s legal counsel denied such an agreement. She also alleged that an investigation by CFA Institute’s Professional Conduct Department intimidated her and harmed her reputation. Beiro referred to a written settlement agreement connected to a Virginia small-claims case but did not provide its terms or attach a copy.

She sought $80,000 in compensatory damages, including travel expenses, possible lost wages, and a bonus, plus $160,000 in punitive damages.

Earlier Litigation

The opinion states that Beiro had previously filed three federal actions in the Western District of Virginia arising from the same events. The first two were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the pleadings did not adequately establish a federal claim or the required amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction. The third case was substantially similar to this one. According to the opinion, the defendants in that case argued that a written settlement agreement barred an alleged oral agreement, that the alleged facts did not show a breach of the written settlement agreement, and that the complaint did not state a claim for the alleged intentional tort.

Venue Analysis

The court explained that venue generally may lie where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Beiro filed in New York, but the complaint did not allege where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred or where the defendants were located.

The court also explained that, even when venue is proper, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) permits transfer to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court considered the prior Virginia litigation and stated that this action was essentially the same lawsuit as the third earlier Virginia case. It therefore said it was inclined to transfer the case to the Western District of Virginia.

Order

The court ordered Beiro to show cause—meaning to explain—why the case should not be transferred to the Western District of Virginia. She had to submit a declaration to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the order and identify the case’s docket number. The order stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Beiro did not respond, and could not show good cause for that failure, the complaint would be transferred. The order also stated that she could ask to voluntarily withdraw the action if she did not want to pursue it in Virginia.

Judge Colleen McMahon did not transfer the case in this order and did not decide the underlying state-law claims. The court warned that additional nonmeritorious litigation could result in an order barring Beiro from filing new actions without prior permission. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.