Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 7, 2020

De Fries v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-10247
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In De Fries v. Wells Fargo Bank, Judge McMahon transferred the foreclosure-related property-loss case from New York to Connecticut.

Who this affects

Roland J. De Fries and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; the case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of Connecticut.

What happened

In De Fries v. Wells Fargo Bank, Roland J. De Fries, representing himself, sued over the loss of personal property connected to the foreclosure on his home in Litchfield County, Connecticut. He relied on diversity jurisdiction and Connecticut law.

The court found that the events occurred in Connecticut, including the location of the property and apparently the foreclosure proceedings. It concluded that the District of Connecticut was the proper and more convenient forum.

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The New York case was closed, no summons would issue there, and the court denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
De Fries v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA · No. 1:20-cv-10247
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Dec. 7, 2020

Background

Roland J. De Fries filed this self-represented action against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. He asserted claims concerning the loss of personal property in connection with the foreclosure on his home in Litchfield County, Connecticut. The complaint relied on the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and other state law.

Venue and Transfer

The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. De Fries did not allege that the events underlying his claims occurred in the Southern District of New York, and the court said it was unclear whether Wells Fargo was subject to personal jurisdiction there for this action.

The court also considered transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The underlying events occurred in Torrington, Connecticut, where the property was located. Torrington is in Litchfield County and the District of Connecticut. The court also stated that the foreclosure proceedings between De Fries and Wells Fargo appeared to have taken place in state court in Litchfield County. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the court concluded that transfer was appropriate.

Disposition

The court ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York, directed that a copy be mailed to De Fries, and stated that no summons would issue from that court. The transferee court would decide whether De Fries could continue without prepaying filing fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Colleen McMahon did not decide the underlying property-loss or state-law claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.