Ditto v. The Estate of Mary Ditto
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-11235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ditto v. Estate of Mary Ditto, Judge Swain transferred the pro se plaintiff’s case to Illinois because venue was improper in New York.
Frank Ditto’s case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Illinois; the transferee court will decide whether he may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Ditto v. The Estate of Mary Ditto, Frank Ditto sued family members over real property in Rockford, Illinois, while invoking federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.
The court found that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York because the defendants’ alleged residence and the property were in Illinois, and the plaintiff did not allege that a substantial part of the events occurred in New York.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the case to the Northern District of Illinois, directed that no summons issue from the New York court, and closed the case there. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Ditto v. The Estate of Mary Ditto · No. 1:21-cv-11235
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 5, 2022
Background
Frank Ditto, appearing without a lawyer, brought claims against the Estate of Mary Ditto, Catherine Ditto, and unidentified defendants. He invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and alleged that the dispute involved family members and real property located in Rockford, Illinois. He alleged that he was a New York citizen residing in New York City, that the defendants were Illinois citizens, and that some events related to his claims occurred in San Francisco, California.
Venue analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which generally allows a civil case to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or where a substantial part of the property involved in the case is located. The court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York because Ditto did not allege that any defendant resided there or that a substantial part of the relevant events occurred there.
The court noted that Ditto’s allegations potentially supported venue in either the Northern District of California or the Northern District of Illinois. Because he alleged that the defendants resided in Illinois and that the property was located there, the court selected the Northern District of Illinois as the proper transferee court. The opinion also noted, without reproducing the earlier case’s party names, that Ditto had filed a related case concerning the same defendants and property in the Northern District of California in 2017 and later voluntarily withdrew it after settling.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a). The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Ditto could continue without prepaying filing fees. It directed that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York and stated that the order closed the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.