Sweigert v. Goodman
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-02788
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Sweigert v. Goodman, Judge Drain transferred the case to New York, dismissed pending motions without prejudice, and dismissed the show-cause order.
George W. Sweigert and Jason Goodman; the case will continue, if at all, in the Southern District of New York, and the pending motions were dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Sweigert v. Goodman, George W. Sweigert sued Jason Goodman over alleged defamatory statements, asserting claims for defamation, libel, and slander. Both parties were representing themselves. Sweigert lived in Georgia, Goodman lived in New York, and the alleged misconduct did not occur in Michigan.
The court decided that the case should proceed in the Southern District of New York because the parties had another case there and had accepted that court’s authority over them. The court also said that personal jurisdiction over Goodman in Michigan was unclear and that venue was not proper there.
Judge Gershwin A. Drain ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of New York under federal venue law. The court dismissed the parties’ pending motions without prejudice and dismissed its February 11, 2022, order requiring Goodman to explain his conduct.
The detailed version
- Sweigert v. Goodman · No. 1:22-cv-02788
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 1, 2022
Background
George W. Sweigert filed a diversity lawsuit against Jason Goodman, alleging defamation, libel, and slander. The alleged claims arose from Goodman’s statements that Sweigert had committed fraud in another matter. The opinion states that Sweigert was living in Georgia and Goodman was residing in New York City. Both parties were representing themselves.
The opinion also discusses Goodman’s conduct in connection with another case, including an allegedly improper filing and communications with court personnel. After a March 4, 2022, hearing, the court declined to impose sanctions against Goodman at that time and dismissed its February 11, 2022, order requiring him to show why sanctions should not be imposed.
Transfer Decision
The court considered federal venue rules and the statutes allowing a civil case to be transferred to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or in the interest of justice. The court identified factors including witness convenience, access to evidence, the parties’ convenience, where the events occurred, the availability of compulsory process, the parties’ resources, the forum’s familiarity with the governing law, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, and trial efficiency.
The court concluded that transfer to the Southern District of New York was required for the convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice. Neither party resided in Michigan. The parties also had another case pending in the Southern District of New York, docket number 21-cv-10878, where the parties had already accepted personal jurisdiction. The court stated that whether Michigan could exercise personal jurisdiction over Goodman was unclear.
The court further concluded that venue was not proper in the Eastern District of Michigan because it was unlikely that the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the sole defendant. It held that the case could be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which addresses cases filed in the wrong federal district and permits transfer when the interests of justice require it.
Disposition
Judge Gershwin A. Drain ordered the clerk to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The court dismissed the parties’ pending motions, identified as docket entries 8, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 33, and 35, without prejudice. The court also dismissed its February 11, 2022, order to show cause.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.