Jallow v. Wells Fargo & Co.

Background

Yaya Jallow, representing himself and requesting permission to proceed without paying filing fees, sued Wells Fargo & Co. and EAN Holdings, LLC. He invoked federal laws concerning race-based contracting discrimination and credit discrimination, a federal bank-fraud provision, and Washington State antidiscrimination law. He alleged that, in 2018, he tried six times to rent a car through Enterprise Rent-a-Car in Seattle. According to the complaint, Enterprise employees treated him differently because of his race and socioeconomic status, failed to honor reservations, sought to charge more than quoted, and fraudulently charged his Wells Fargo credit card. Jallow also alleged that Enterprise and Wells Fargo failed to properly investigate his complaints. He said he later sought help from the Washington State Division of Human Rights and continued contacting the defendants.

Venue and Transfer

The court explained that federal venue generally is proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Jallow’s allegations concerned events in Seattle, and he did not allege that any underlying event or omission occurred in the Southern District of New York. The court also said it was unclear whether the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction there.

The court further considered transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a court to move a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It concluded that transfer was appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Seattle and Jallow had sought relief from Washington’s state human-rights agency. Seattle is in King County, within the Western District of Washington, where the court found venue proper.

Disposition

The court ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. It directed that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York and stated that the order closed that case. The court did not decide the merits of Jallow’s discrimination, credit, fraud, or state-law claims. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.