Taal v. St. Mary's Bank

Background

Boubacar B. Taal, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a purported qui tam action under the False Claims Act against St. Mary’s Bank. A qui tam action is a lawsuit brought by a private person on behalf of the government. The opinion describes St. Mary’s Bank as a New Hampshire credit union and states that Taal was a New Hampshire resident. Taal alleged that the credit union and New Hampshire courts violated his rights in earlier cases involving the credit union.

The court’s footnote states that, in the Second Circuit, people representing themselves lack statutory standing to bring False Claims Act qui tam claims. The court therefore declined to seal the matter as would normally be required in such an action. The opinion did not decide the standing issue as the basis for this order.

Venue Analysis

Federal law permits a civil action to be filed where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying the claims occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where the defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court found that Taal did not allege that St. Mary’s Bank resided in the Southern District of New York or that a substantial part of the relevant events occurred there.

The court determined that venue was proper in the District of New Hampshire because Taal and St. Mary’s Bank resided there and all of the underlying events took place there. Under the federal venue-transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court transferred the action to the District of New Hampshire.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire and to mail Taal a copy of the order. She ordered that a summons not issue from the Southern District of New York and stated that the order closed that case. The opinion leaves to the transferee court the question whether Taal must pay the full civil-case filing fee rather than the miscellaneous filing fee he had paid. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed venue and did not decide the underlying claims.