Beiro v. CFA Institute

Background

Maria Del Pilar Pose Beiro sued the CFA Institute under the court's diversity jurisdiction, which allows certain disputes involving citizens of different states or countries to be heard in federal court. Beiro filed without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. She alleged generally that the CFA Institute engaged in wrongful conduct and sought money damages.

According to the opinion, Beiro enrolled in a CFA program in 2016 and did not pass an examination in 2017. She was dissatisfied with the CFA Institute's response to her complaints about several issues. The opinion says it was unclear whether she participated in the program online. Beiro also referred to an earlier case in the United Kingdom and a small-claims case in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Prior litigation and transfer question

The court learned through a search of the federal court docket system that Beiro had filed three earlier cases against the CFA Institute in the Western District of Virginia concerning the same events. Those cases were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The opinion does not identify the court involved in Beiro's United Kingdom matter.

The court had ordered Beiro to explain why the present case should not be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a statute allowing transfer in the interest of justice. Beiro argued that New York was a proper venue because the CFA Institute did business there and had sufficient contacts with the state. She also asked the court not to impose a filing injunction or another sanction.

Ruling

The court held that, even if venue in the Southern District of New York were proper, Beiro had not shown why the case should remain there rather than be transferred to the court where she had previously filed three cases against the same defendant about the same events. The opinion states that the matter was transferred in the interest of justice under § 1404(a).

The body of the order refers to transfer to the Western District of New York, but the conclusion directs transfer to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The operative conclusion also directs the clerk to close the case, mail Beiro a copy of the order, note service on the docket, and issue no summons from the Southern District of New York.

The court did not impose sanctions at that time, although it left its prior warning in effect. It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Beiro permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.