Kleinbart v. New York City

Background

Steven Kleinbart and Sarah Kleinbart appeared without lawyers and invoked federal-question jurisdiction. They sued New York City, the New York City Administration for Children’s Services, agency officials and employees, Kings County Family Court Judge Ben Darvil, Jr., and several private parties. They brought claims on their own behalf and on behalf of their minor child, identified in the order as H.K. They also filed a motion seeking an emergency temporary restraining order.

The complaint alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy involving the removal of the child from the plaintiffs’ custody and an allegedly false diagnosis of Sarah Kleinbart with a mental illness. The plaintiffs also alleged discrimination based on their Orthodox Jewish faith, violations of familial and religious rights, and abuse and neglect of their daughter by child-services personnel and her foster family.

Venue and Transfer Analysis

The court discussed the general federal venue rule, which 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 the court’s personal jurisdiction.

The court determined that transfer was appropriate 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 major events described in the complaint—including hearings and other proceedings concerning custody—occurred in Brooklyn. The plaintiffs had previously lived there, and most defendants appeared to reside or work there. The court also noted that Brooklyn is in Kings County, which is within the Eastern District of New York. It concluded that venue was proper in that district and that the overall circumstances favored transfer.

The court explained that federal district courts may order a transfer on their own initiative. It also noted that the family-court judge was immune from damages claims for actions taken within judicial responsibilities, although the transfer decision did not resolve the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.

Disposition

The court directed the clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, mail the order to the plaintiffs, and record service on the docket. It directed that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York and stated that the order closed the case there.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti did not decide whether the plaintiffs’ underlying allegations or legal claims were valid.