Santana v. Exodus Transitional Community, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-02173
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Santana v. Exodus Transitional Community, Inc., Judge Swain transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York because events, witnesses, and documents centered there.
Fernando Santana's case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The order did not decide whether his discrimination, failure-to-hire, or discharge allegations were legally valid.
What happened
Fernando Santana, representing himself, sued Exodus Transitional Community, Inc., and individual employees under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged discrimination, failure to hire, and discharge from the Exodus Transitional Hotel Program at a hotel in Long Island City, Queens.
The court said it was unclear whether all defendants lived in the Southern District of New York and noted that most events occurred in Queens, in the Eastern District of New York. The court concluded that the Eastern District was also a proper venue and that transfer would better serve the parties, witnesses, evidence, and the interests of justice.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The Southern District case was closed, no summons would issue from that court, and the court denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Santana v. Exodus Transitional Community, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02173
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 22, 2022
Background
Fernando Santana brought the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against state actors. He alleged that the defendants discriminated against him, failed to hire him, and eventually discharged him from the Exodus Transitional Hotel Program operating at a Fairfield Inn and Suites by Marriott hotel. The complaint named Exodus Transitional Community, Inc., individual Exodus employees, and possibly individual hotel employees.
Venue
The court explained that federal venue may be proper where defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. Santana alleged facts showing that Exodus resided in the Southern District of New York, but he did not allege where the other defendants resided. The court therefore found it unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District under the defendant-residence provision.
The court also found that events occurred in both New York County, within the Southern District, and at the hotel in Long Island City, Queens County, within the Eastern District. Because most events occurred at the hotel, the Eastern District was a proper venue under the provision based on where the events occurred.
Transfer and disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court determined that transfer was appropriate because the underlying events principally occurred at the hotel and relevant witnesses and documents were likely located there. Based on the total circumstances, the court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Santana could continue without paying filing fees. A summons would not issue from the Southern District, and the order closed the case in that court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Santana a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.