Hirsch v. Miles
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-05637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hirsch v. Miles, Judge Swain transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York because venue was improper in Manhattan.
The order affects Elliot M. Hirsch, Adina Miles, and Yeshiva of Flatbush Joel Braverman High School by moving the action from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York.
What happened
In Hirsch v. Miles, Elliot M. Hirsch, representing himself, sued Adina Miles and Yeshiva of Flatbush Joel Braverman High School under New York law. He alleged that his claims arose on Instagram and in Brooklyn, New York, and that both defendants resided in Brooklyn.
The court ruled that the Southern District of New York was not the proper location for the case because Hirsch did not allege that a defendant resided there or that a substantial part of the events occurred there. The court transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York, where Kings County is located. The order also said that the receiving court would decide whether Hirsch could proceed without paying filing fees, and that no summons would issue from the Southern District of New York.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the transfer and closed the Southern District of New York case. She also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Hirsch v. Miles · No. 1:21-cv-05637
- Laura Swain
- July 1, 2021
Background
Elliot M. Hirsch brought this action without a lawyer, invoking the court’s authority over disputes between citizens of different states. He alleged that Adina Miles and Yeshiva of Flatbush Joel Braverman High School violated his rights under New York law. According to the opinion, Hirsch alleged that the claims arose on Instagram and in Brooklyn, New York, and that both defendants resided in Brooklyn.
Venue analysis
Federal law permits a civil action to be filed in certain districts, including a district where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. The court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York because Hirsch did not allege that either defendant resided in that district or that a substantial part of the relevant events occurred there.
The court determined that the claims arose in Kings County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong venue to a district where it could have been brought.
Ruling and additional orders
The court directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Hirsch could continue without prepaying fees. No summons would issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case there.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not decide the merits of Hirsch’s underlying New York-law claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.