Ulanov v. New York State Board of Elections
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-11138
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Judge Carter transferred Ulanov v. New York State Board of Elections to the Eastern District of New York because the events and likely evidence were in Brooklyn.
Gennadiy N. Ulanov’s action was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The New York State Board of Elections remains the named defendant in the caption; the opinion also noted that the allegations seemed to implicate the New York City Board of Elections.
What happened
Ulanov v. New York State Board of Elections involved Gennadiy N. Ulanov, who represented himself and sought money damages after alleging an irregularity at a Brooklyn polling place. He said his electoral rights were violated and invoked diversity jurisdiction.
The court said the Southern District of New York was a proper venue because the named defendant, the New York State Board of Elections, could be sued throughout New York State. But it found that the Eastern District was also proper because the events occurred in Brooklyn and relevant witnesses and documents, including Ulanov, were likely there.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York and directed that no summons issue from the Southern District. The order closed the action there and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ulanov v. New York State Board of Elections · No. 1:21-cv-11138
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 6, 2022
Background
Gennadiy N. Ulanov appeared without a lawyer and had paid the filing fees. He alleged that his “electoral rights” were violated after he observed an irregularity in the collection of votes at a school used as a polling place in Brooklyn on November 4, 2020. He invoked diversity jurisdiction and sought money damages from the New York State Board of Elections.
Venue analysis
The court explained that venue is proper in a federal district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where the defendant is subject to the court’s authority. It concluded that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue because the New York State Board of Elections, a state agency, resides throughout New York State.
The court also stated that Ulanov’s allegations seemed to imply legal violations by the New York City Board of Elections, a city agency. Because the alleged events occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue based on where the events occurred.
Transfer ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another proper district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court considered the circumstances and found transfer appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Brooklyn and relevant documents and witnesses, including Ulanov, were likely located there. The court therefore ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was directed to transfer the action. The court ordered that a summons not issue from the Southern District and stated that the order closed the action in that district. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order did not decide whether Ulanov’s alleged electoral-rights violation occurred or whether he was entitled to damages.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.