Taal v. St. Mary's Bank
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-06403
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Taal v. St. Mary's Bank, Judge McMahon denied Taal’s reconsideration motion because the transfer ended this court’s jurisdiction.
Boubacar B. Taal, who represented himself, was required to challenge the transfer in the District of New Hampshire; the order also affected the handling of the case docket and any appeal.
What happened
Boubacar B. Taal represented himself in a case against St. Mary’s Bank. This court had transferred the case to the District of New Hampshire, and that court received the case papers on August 25, 2020.
Taal later asked this court to reconsider the transfer order under federal procedural rules. The court said that, after the transfer, it no longer had authority over the case and that any challenge to the transfer had to be filed in the District of New Hampshire.
Judge Colleen McMahon denied Taal’s reconsideration motion. The court ended all other pending matters, restricted further filings under this docket, and denied fee-free appeal status after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Taal v. St. Mary's Bank · No. 1:20-cv-06403
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 20, 2020
Background
Boubacar B. Taal filed the action without a lawyer. On August 17, 2020, the court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The District of New Hampshire’s clerk confirmed receipt of the case on August 25, 2020.
On October 16, 2020, Taal filed a motion under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure challenging the transfer order.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that transferring a case generally removes the transferring court’s authority to act in it. The transferring court keeps that authority to review the transfer only if the party seeking review moves to stop the transfer before the receiving court gets the case papers. Because Taal filed his motion almost two months after the District of New Hampshire confirmed receipt, this court concluded that it no longer had jurisdiction over the action.
The court stated that Taal had to challenge the transfer in the District of New Hampshire if he wished to do so.
Ruling
The court denied Taal’s motion for reconsideration of the transfer order. It directed the clerk to mail Taal a copy of the order and record service on the docket, terminated all other pending matters, and directed the clerk not to accept further submissions under this docket number except papers directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court denied reconsideration based on its lack of jurisdiction after the transfer, without deciding the underlying claims against St. Mary’s Bank.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.