Ditto v. Peterson Properties
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04788
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ditto v. Peterson Properties, Judge Swain transferred the action to California because the relevant events occurred in Oakland.
Frank Ditto and Julie Ditto must pursue the action, if permitted to proceed, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California rather than the Southern District of New York. The named and unidentified defendants are affected by the transfer, but the order did not decide the plaintiffs’ claims against them.
What happened
In Ditto v. Peterson Properties, Frank Ditto and Julie Ditto brought a lawsuit without lawyers against several Peterson defendants and unidentified defendants. They alleged violations of California law, Oakland law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and possibly the Fair Housing Act related to renting an apartment in Oakland, California.
The plaintiffs filed the case in the Southern District of New York and provided a New York post-office-box address. The court noted that the apartment, the alleged events, and at least one defendant’s listed address were in Oakland. It also noted that the complaint did not identify where several defendants lived.
Judge Swain ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California because that court was a more convenient forum. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York, left any decision about proceeding without paying filing fees to the transferee court, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Ditto v. Peterson Properties · No. 1:22-cv-04788
- Laura Swain
- June 10, 2022
Background
Frank Ditto and Julie Ditto filed this action without lawyers against Peterson Properties; Peterson Property Management; Ted Peterson; Steve Peterson; and ten unidentified defendants. They alleged that the defendants violated California state law, Oakland municipal law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and possibly the Fair Housing Act in connection with the plaintiffs’ rental of an apartment in Oakland, California. The plaintiffs provided a New York post-office-box address. They listed an Oakland, California, address for Peterson Properties.
Venue
The court explained that federal law permits a civil action to be filed in certain districts, including a district where a substantial part of the events occurred. The complaint alleged that the relevant events occurred in Oakland and that the apartment was located there. Oakland is in Alameda County, within the Northern District of California.
The court could not determine whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York or the Northern District of California based on where the defendants resided because the complaint did not identify the residences of Peterson Property Management, Ted Peterson, or Steve Peterson. It was also unclear whether Peterson Properties could be considered a New York resident. The court nevertheless concluded that, even assuming venue was proper in New York, venue was also proper in the Northern District of California because the relevant events occurred there.
Transfer Decision
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another district where it could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the location of the events, likely witnesses, and relevant documents. It concluded that the apartment, the underlying events, and most defendants appeared to be in Oakland, making the Northern District of California a more convenient forum.
The court therefore ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether the plaintiffs could proceed without prepaying fees. Summonses were not to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case there.
The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.