Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-05350
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox, Judge Stanton transferred Roker’s action from New York to Tennessee because Tennessee was the proper and more convenient venue.
Damond J. Roker and the named defendants were affected because the action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Western District of Tennessee; the New York case was closed without a merits ruling.
What happened
In Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox, Damond J. Roker sued several Fox- and Cox-related companies and individuals. He brought employment-discrimination claims under Title VII and state-law claims based on television reports about him. Roker represented himself and was incarcerated in Tennessee.
The court found that the events underlying the claims occurred in Memphis, Tennessee, and that some defendants were outside New York. Although Roker alleged that some employment records were in New York, the court found it unclear whether those records remained there and noted that this argument applied only to his Title VII claims.
The court transferred the action to the Western District of Tennessee under federal venue and convenience rules, closed the case in the Southern District of New York, and directed that no summons issue there. Judge Louis L. Stanton did not decide the merits of Roker’s claims.
The detailed version
- Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox · No. 1:20-cv-05350
- Louis Stanton
- June 9, 2021
Background
Damond J. Roker, representing himself, sued Twentieth Century Fox; Fox Broadcasting Company; Fox Entertainment Group; News Corporation; Cox Media Group Northeast, LLC; Cox Media Group, Inc.; Kim Guthrie; Brett Fennell; and Jean C. Fuentes. He asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and invoked diversity jurisdiction. He also asserted state-law claims for defamation, libel, false-light invasion of privacy, and infliction of emotional distress.
Roker alleged that he worked for WHBQ-TV/Fox Channel 13 in Memphis, Tennessee, and filed a race-discrimination charge against his employer in 2003. He alleged that Fox Channel 13 later broadcast and published reports about criminal allegations against him in July 2016. He claimed the reports were false or misleading, failed to state that certain charges had later been dropped, and were published in retaliation for his discrimination case and in violation of a settlement agreement’s non-disparagement provision.
Venue analysis
Venue is the proper federal district for a case. The court explained that, under the general federal venue statute, a civil action may generally be brought where all defendants reside in the same state, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
The court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York for Roker’s tort claims. The allegations showed that some individual defendants were outside New York, and the events underlying the claims occurred outside New York. The court also considered Roker’s allegation that relevant employment records were held in New York. It found that allegation insufficiently clear because Roker also alleged that the Tennessee television station was now owned by a Georgia company. In addition, the alleged New York records could support venue only for the Title VII claim, not for the state-law claims.
The court concluded that venue was proper in the Western District of Tennessee. Roker had worked there, his employment-discrimination claims arose there, and the events underlying his tort claims also occurred there.
Transfer ruling
Even assuming that venue for the Title VII claims was proper in New York, the court held that transfer was appropriate for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court considered the location of the operative events, the convenience of the parties and witnesses, access to documents and other evidence, the availability of compulsory process, the parties’ relative means, the applicable law, the weight given to Roker’s choice of forum, trial efficiency, and the overall interest of justice. It emphasized that Roker did not reside in New York, the operative events did not occur there, and venue was not proper there for all claims.
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a). The Clerk was directed to transfer the action, no summons was to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case in that district. The court did not rule on whether Roker’s underlying claims were legally valid.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.