Tasciotti v. Trew

Background

Peter Tasciotti, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Jesse Trew and Glen Trew. The complaint asserted claims described as fraud, harassment, theft of property, and destruction of property. Tasciotti alleged that, while he was in Los Angeles, Jesse Trew interfered with his relationship with his common-law wife and children and took property and intellectual property, including a film project called “The Matrix Documentary movie.”

The court initially directed that summonses be issued because the complaint did not clearly identify where the alleged conduct occurred. After reviewing later filings, the court determined that the alleged events occurred primarily at the Gulf Coast International Society for Krishna Consciousness site, also called MS ISKON or New Talavan Ashram, in Carriere, Mississippi. The court also determined that neither defendant was a resident of New York. The complaint stated that Jesse Trew resided in Franklin, Tennessee, and Glen Trew lived in Nashville, Tennessee, while later filings expressed uncertainty about Jesse Trew’s current location.

Venue analysis

Venue is the federal district where a lawsuit may properly be filed. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue generally may lie where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, when no other district qualifies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction for the action.

The court concluded that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York for two independent reasons. First, neither defendant was a New York resident. Second, the alleged interference with Tasciotti’s family relationships and the alleged taking of filming equipment and files occurred in Carriere, Mississippi, not in New York. The court stated that the only connection to the Southern District of New York was Tasciotti’s residence there.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when venue is improper, a court may dismiss the case or transfer it to a district where it could have been brought if transfer serves the interests of justice. The court also separately found under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) that the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses favored transfer. The operative facts and likely sources of proof were connected to the Mississippi site, and Tasciotti had not indicated that evidence apart from himself and his wife was located in New York.

The court ordered that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The transfer was ordered by the court on its own initiative. The court did not decide the merits of Tasciotti’s claims; it stated that the transfer assumed federal jurisdiction existed and that the claims were not frivolous. The transferee court was directed to address all pending motions.