Corbishley v. Napolitano

Background

Charles Corbishley filed this diversity case in the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserted four counts under New Jersey Statute § 2A:14-2b and alleged that Andrew Napolitano, who was then a New Jersey Superior Court judge presiding over a case in which Corbishley was a criminal defendant, sexually assaulted Corbishley at a residence in Hackensack, New Jersey, in or around December 1988.

Napolitano moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer the case because venue was improper. He argued that he was domiciled in Sussex County, New Jersey, rather than New York City. Corbishley argued that Napolitano resided in New York City. Corbishley did not rely on the location of the alleged events as a separate basis for venue.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil case may generally be filed where all defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither of those options is available, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. For venue purposes, a natural person resides in the federal judicial district where the person is domiciled. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when venue is improper, the court must dismiss or, in the interest of justice, transfer the case to a district where it could have been brought.

The court explained that domicile depends on both residence and an intention to remain. A person may have more than one residence but only one domicile at a time. Relevant evidence can include voting registration, employment, current residence, property, family, licenses, vehicle registration, taxes, bank accounts, and medical providers.

Court’s analysis

The parties agreed that Napolitano owned one home in Sussex County, New Jersey, and one in Manhattan, and that he typically spent at least some nights each week at each home. Napolitano presented evidence that he had a New Jersey driver’s license and firearm license; paid taxes in New Jersey; was registered to vote there; registered and insured all four vehicles there; owned and operated a farm there through a New Jersey corporation with a New Jersey bank account; and had his church and doctors there. He also stated that he intended to stay in Sussex County into retirement and beyond.

Corbishley presented statements attributed to Napolitano indicating that he lived and worked in Manhattan five days a week and went to New Jersey on weekends. Corbishley also submitted a private investigator’s account of a building manager’s statement that Napolitano lived in the Manhattan apartment and sometimes went to a New Jersey farm. The court found that this evidence provided little help in showing that Napolitano was domiciled in New York. The court also considered Napolitano’s work at Fox News and his prior work as a visiting law professor at Brooklyn Law School, but found those facts of limited value because Napolitano acknowledged spending time in New York while maintaining that he spent more than half his time in New Jersey.

The court concluded that the dispute over how much time Napolitano spent in each place was not material. His New Jersey licenses, registrations, taxes, farm, church, doctors, and other connections strongly supported his stated intention to remain domiciled in New Jersey.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick held that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York under § 1391(b)(1) because Napolitano was domiciled in New Jersey and under § 1391(b)(2) because nearly all events giving rise to the claims occurred in New Jersey. Venue was proper in the District of New Jersey under both provisions. Because another proper federal district existed, venue was also improper under § 1391(b)(3).

The court ruled that it had to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey under § 1406(a). Napolitano’s motion to transfer was GRANTED, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Document 6. The opinion addressed venue and transfer; it did not decide the underlying allegations.