Almazon v. Safeguard Properties, LLC

Background

Doina Almazon sued Safeguard Properties, LLC. She alleged that events at her home in Hicksville, New York, included Safeguard entering the home, changing the locks, shutting off the electricity, removing a shed, damaging and removing personal property, leaving the garage and backyard open, and removing window boarding. The court stated that Hicksville is in Nassau County, within the Eastern District of New York.

The defendant’s notice of removal stated that Safeguard was a citizen of Delaware and Ohio. The court also learned that Almazon had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. Because of the location of the events and the bankruptcy proceeding, the court questioned whether the case was properly located in the Southern District of New York.

Parties’ Positions

The court ordered the parties to explain why the case should remain in the Southern District. Safeguard agreed that the proper venue was the Eastern District and stated that it did not object to transfer.

Almazon argued that the case should remain in the Southern District because she had originally filed it in New York State Court in Manhattan and Safeguard removed it there. She also argued that her complaint alleged that Safeguard contracted with or acted as an agent for JPMorgan Chase, whose headquarters she said were in the Southern District. In addition, she argued that the court was familiar with the facts, had expressed interest in helping the parties settle, and that transfer would not prejudice Safeguard.

The court explained that removal to the Southern District occurred because the case had been filed in Manhattan state court. It also noted that JPMorgan Chase was not a defendant in this case and that Almazon’s separate action against JPMorgan Chase would not be affected by this transfer. The court further found that the case was at a very early stage: it had only the complaint and notice of removal, and no discovery had occurred before the court.

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal district court may transfer a civil case to another district where it could have been brought, or to a district to which all parties have consented, when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice.

Ruling

The court concluded that all events underlying the claims occurred in the Eastern District, that Almazon and her home were located there, and that her bankruptcy proceeding was pending there. It found that the Eastern District could fairly and efficiently handle the case and saw no prejudice to either party from transferring the case at that early stage.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the action transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The order addressed venue only and did not decide whether Almazon’s underlying claims were legally valid.