Kaul v. Murphy
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-05293
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Kaul v. Murphy, Judge Briccetti transferred the pro se action to New Jersey because its events and defendants were tied there.
The action brought by Richard Arjun Kaul, M.D., against Philip Murphy, Christopher J. Christie, Gurbir Grewal, Robert McGuire, and Doreen Annette Hafner was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey.
What happened
In Kaul v. Murphy, Richard Arjun Kaul, M.D., brought a pro se action against current or former New Jersey officials, including Philip Murphy and Christopher J. Christie. He listed New Jersey addresses for all defendants.
The court concluded that New York was not the proper venue because the defendants were not all New York residents and most, if not all, of the events occurred in New Jersey. It also determined that transferring the case would serve the parties, witnesses, and the interests of justice.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and closed the case. The court also denied fee-free appeal status, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Kaul v. Murphy · No. 7:21-cv-05293
- Vincent Briccetti
- June 21, 2021
Background
Richard Arjun Kaul, M.D., filed a pro se action alleging that Philip Murphy, Christopher J. Christie, Gurbir Grewal, Robert McGuire, and Doreen Annette Hafner violated his rights. The opinion identifies Murphy as the New Jersey governor, Christie as a former New Jersey governor, Grewal as the New Jersey attorney general, and McGuire and Hafner as deputy attorneys general. Kaul listed New Jersey addresses for all defendants.
Venue and Transfer
Venue is the federal judicial district where a civil action may properly be litigated. The court explained that venue generally may be based on where the defendants reside or where a substantial part of the events occurred. It concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York under the provision concerning defendants’ residence because the defendants did not all reside in New York. The court also stated that most, if not all, of Kaul’s claims involved events occurring in New Jersey.
Kaul alleged that the events underlying his claims ultimately began with a 2016 decision by a court in the Southern District of New York to transfer one of his actions to the District of New Jersey. The court held that this allegation did not establish venue in New York. It further explained that, even if venue had been proper in New York, federal law permits a court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court considered the connection to New Jersey, including that the underlying events occurred there and that all defendants were current or former New Jersey state officials residing there.
Disposition
The court concluded that transfer was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. It also directed the Clerk to mail Kaul a copy of the order and note service on the docket. Whether the transferee court would issue summonses was left to that court’s discretion. The order closed the case.
The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Kaul permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. Judge Vincent L. Briccetti signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.