Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 9, 2022

Xu v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-04511
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Xu v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Judge Swain transferred the pro se action to the Eastern District of New York because Queens was the relevant forum.

Who this affects

ZhongSai Xu, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the individual identified as “Carlos”; the action was moved to the Eastern District of New York, whose court will decide whether Xu may proceed without prepaying fees.

What happened

Xu v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development concerns ZhongSai Xu’s pro se claims about an apartment he rented in Flushing, Queens. He named the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and an individual identified as “Carlos,” the manager of Queens Brai B’rith House.

The court explained that the alleged events occurred in Queens County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. It also said that relevant documents and witnesses would reasonably be expected to be there, making that district more convenient.

Judge Swain ordered the action transferred to the Eastern District of New York and closed the case in the Southern District of New York. The court did not issue summonses, and the Eastern District will decide whether Xu may proceed without prepaying fees; the court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Xu v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development · No. 1:22-cv-04511
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 9, 2022

Background

ZhongSai Xu filed this pro se action under federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and an individual named “Carlos,” whom Xu identified as the manager of Queens Brai B’rith House, violated his rights in connection with an apartment he rented. Xu stated that he resides in Flushing, Queens County, New York, and that Queens Brai B’rith House is located there. The opinion does not state the defendants’ addresses or residences.

Venue and Transfer

The court considered venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Because Xu did not plead where the defendants reside, the court said it was unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York based on the defendants’ residence. The court nevertheless assumed that venue might be proper there and concluded that venue was also proper in the Eastern District of New York because the events underlying Xu’s claims occurred in Queens County.

The court determined that transfer was appropriate for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The underlying events occurred in Queens County, where Xu resides, and relevant documents and witnesses would reasonably be expected to be there. The court therefore found that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be the more convenient forum.

Disposition

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 order closed the case in the Southern District of New York. Summonses were not to issue from that court, and the transferee court was left to decide whether Xu could proceed without prepaying fees. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal from the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.