Wooten v. Ascend/Alkem Laboratories
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04477
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wooten v. Ascend/Alkem Laboratories, Judge Swain transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York because venue was improper in Manhattan.
Aisha Wooten’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The receiving court was left to decide whether she could proceed without prepaying fees and whether volunteer counsel should be requested; the underlying claims against Ascend/Alkem Laboratories and “Ibueprofen Medication” were not decided.
What happened
Aisha Wooten, representing herself, sued Ascend/Alkem Laboratories and “Ibueprofen Medication,” alleging that she was injured after receiving “outdated” ibuprofen at an unidentified hospital’s emergency room. She sought damages.
The Southern District of New York found that Wooten had not shown that the defendants resided in that district or that the events occurred there. Because she alleged continuing injuries in Brooklyn, the court concluded that the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue and transferred the case there rather than deciding the underlying injury claims.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the transfer and closed the case in the Southern District of New York. That court did not decide whether Wooten could proceed without paying filing fees or whether she should receive appointed volunteer counsel; those issues were left to the receiving court. It also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Wooten v. Ascend/Alkem Laboratories · No. 1:22-cv-04477
- Laura Swain
- June 2, 2022
Background
Aisha Wooten filed this lawsuit without a lawyer. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that she suffered injuries after receiving “outdated” ibuprofen while visiting an unidentified hospital’s emergency room. She sought damages from “Ascend/Alkem Laboratories” and “Ibueprofen Medication.” The opinion does not decide whether those allegations state a valid claim or whether either defendant is legally responsible.
Venue analysis
Venue is the federal district where a case may properly be litigated. The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
Wooten alleged that she resides in Brooklyn, New York, and that the defendants are located in Parsippany, New Jersey, and India. The court found that she did not allege facts showing that either defendant resided in the Southern District of New York or that the events or omissions underlying her claims occurred there. Therefore, venue was not proper in that district under the relevant residence and events provisions.
Wooten also alleged that she continued to suffer injuries in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, where she resides. Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York. The court concluded that the Eastern District was a district where the action could have been brought and that transferring the case there was in the interest of justice.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong venue when transfer serves the interest of justice. Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York, and summonses were not to issue from that court.
The court left to the Eastern District decisions about whether Wooten could proceed without prepaying fees and whether a court should request volunteer counsel for her. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not resolve the merits of Wooten’s injury allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.