Yang v. Chee Ray, LLC
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-01389
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Yang v. Chee Ray, LLC, Judge McMahon transferred Yang’s case from New York to Delaware because venue was improper there.
Kai Chong Yang’s action against Chee Ray, LLC was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The transferee court was left to decide whether Yang could proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
Yang v. Chee Ray, LLC concerns Kai Chong Yang’s claims that appear to involve copyright or trademark infringement against Chee Ray, LLC. Yang represented himself and invoked federal jurisdiction, but he did not allege where the events supporting his claims occurred.
The court concluded that the Southern District of New York was not a proper place for the case because Yang did not allege that Chee Ray resided there or that substantial events occurred there. The court also found that New York was not a proper venue for copyright claims because Yang did not allege that Chee Ray or its agent resided or could be found there.
Judge McMahon directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The court did not decide whether Yang’s copyright or trademark claims were valid; it also stated that the transferee court would decide whether Yang could proceed without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Yang v. Chee Ray, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-01389
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 18, 2021
Background
Kai Chong Yang, who appeared without a lawyer, sued Chee Ray, LLC. The opinion states that Yang is a citizen of China and that his address of record is in North Arlington, New Jersey. Yang alleged that Chee Ray is located in Newark, Delaware, and is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Delaware. Yang invoked diversity jurisdiction, but the court said it appeared that his claims involved copyright or trademark infringement and therefore federal-question jurisdiction. The court had not received the required fees or an application to proceed without prepaying them.
Venue analysis
Venue is the federal district where a lawsuit may properly be heard. For trademark claims, the court explained that venue may be proper where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, in certain circumstances, where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. For copyright claims, the court explained that the action may be brought where the defendant or the defendant’s agent resides or may be found.
Yang alleged that Chee Ray was in Delaware but did not allege facts showing where a substantial part of the events or omissions supporting his claims occurred. The court therefore concluded that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue for the alleged trademark claims. It also concluded that Yang did not allege that Chee Ray or its agent resided or could be found in the Southern District of New York, making that district an improper venue for the alleged copyright claims.
Ruling and effect
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in an improper venue to a proper federal district. The court directed the Clerk to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, which it identified as the proper venue because Chee Ray was alleged to be located there. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Yang could proceed without prepaying fees. No summons was to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the action there.
The court did not decide the merits of Yang’s copyright or trademark claims. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.