Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 30, 2020

Francis Asifuah v. REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:20-cv-05050
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureTort
In one sentence

In Francis Assifuah v. Cohen, Judge Koppe transferred the case to New York because Nevada was not a proper venue.

Who this affects

Francis Assifuah and Reuven L. Cohen; the case was transferred from the District of Nevada to the Southern District of New York.

What happened

Francis Assifuah sued Reuven L. Cohen, alleging that Cohen committed fraud and malpractice while representing him in criminal proceedings in the Southern District of New York.

The court found that the alleged events occurred in New York and that the case had no meaningful connection to Nevada beyond an initial appearance and detention hearing before the criminal case was transferred. The court also noted that a referenced exhibit was not attached.

Judge Nancy J. Koppe ordered the clerk to transfer the matter to the Southern District of New York and close the Nevada case. The transfer did not decide the merits of Assifuah’s claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Francis Asifuah v. REUVEN L. COHEN, ESQ · No. 1:20-cv-05050
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
June 30, 2020

Background

Francis Assifuah submitted an application to proceed without paying filing fees and a proposed complaint. He alleged that Reuven L. Cohen, his attorney during criminal proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, committed fraud and malpractice. The opinion states that Assifuah cited an “Exhibit 1” throughout the proposed complaint, but no exhibit was attached.

Venue analysis

The court explained that federal venue generally is proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, when necessary, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Under the federal venue statute, a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to a district where the case could have been brought.

The court found that Assifuah’s claims arose from alleged events in New York. Apart from his initial appearance and a detention hearing in Nevada before his criminal case was transferred to the Southern District of New York, he alleged no connection between his claims and Nevada. The court therefore concluded that none of the statutory venue provisions made Nevada a proper venue.

Disposition

Judge Nancy J. Koppe ordered the clerk to transfer the matter to the Southern District of New York and ordered that the Nevada case be closed. The court expressly noted that transferring venue did not address the merits of the claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.