Gando Amat v. Hand To Hand Express
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-01564
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Gando Amat v. Hand To Hand Express, Judge Abrams transferred the negligence case to New Jersey because venue was improper in New York.
The order affects Juan Alfredo Gando Amat and Lilia Haydee Garcia, who must litigate their negligence action in the District of New Jersey rather than the Southern District of New York, and Hand To Hand Express and Angelito Aquino-Santana.
What happened
Gando Amat v. Hand To Hand Express involves negligence claims arising from a 2020 vehicle accident in Middlesex County, New Jersey, that severely injured Juan Alfredo Gando Amat. Juan Alfredo Gando Amat and Lilia Haydee Garcia sued Hand To Hand Express and Angelito Aquino-Santana.
The defendants asked to move the case from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey. The court determined that the case was filed in the wrong federal district because the defendants lived in New Jersey and the accident and events underlying the claims occurred there. The plaintiffs pointed to follow-up medical treatment in Queens, but Queens is in the Eastern District of New York, and that treatment did not make venue proper in the Southern District.
Judge Abrams granted the transfer request and directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey. The court did not dismiss the action because the defendants sought transfer rather than dismissal and the case could have been brought in New Jersey.
The detailed version
- Gando Amat v. Hand To Hand Express · No. 1:21-cv-01564
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 14, 2021
Background
Juan Alfredo Gando Amat and Lilia Haydee Garcia brought negligence claims against Hand To Hand Express and Angelito Aquino-Santana. The claims arose from a November 2020 motor-vehicle accident in Middlesex County, New Jersey, which caused severe injuries to Mr. Gando Amat.
On September 9, 2021, the defendants moved to transfer the action to the District of New Jersey. They argued that transfer would be more convenient because the collision occurred in New Jersey, both defendants resided there, and the case would require testimony from witnesses based in New Jersey.
Venue analysis
Venue means the federal district where a lawsuit may properly be heard. The defendants’ motion invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The motion and the complaint also raised a separate issue: whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York at all.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue could be proper where all defendants reside, or where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. The court concluded that neither basis applied. None of the defendants resided in the Southern District of New York, and no events giving rise to the claims occurred there. The plaintiffs’ response identified follow-up medical treatment in Queens, New York, but Queens is in the Eastern District of New York. The court also stated that even follow-up medical care in the Southern District would likely not establish venue because the accident giving rise to the claims occurred elsewhere.
Disposition
The court concluded that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss an action filed in an improper venue or, when appropriate, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. Because the defendants requested transfer rather than dismissal, and because the action could have been brought in the District of New Jersey, Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the transfer request. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Docket 13 and transfer the action to the District of New Jersey.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.