Harding v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03814
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Harding v. Watch Tower, Judge Swain transferred Harding’s abuse lawsuit to the Eastern District of Oklahoma as the more convenient forum.
William L. Harding, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc., and Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses of New York Inc.; the case will proceed, if permitted, in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, where the transferee court will decide whether Harding may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Harding v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc., William L. Harding, who was incarcerated and represented himself, sued two Jehovah’s Witness organizations. He alleged that a church elder sexually abused him as a child in Muskogee, Oklahoma, and that the organizations were responsible for appointing and placing elders and ministerial servants.
The Southern District of New York said venue was proper there because Harding alleged that the defendants resided in that district. But the court found that the Eastern District of Oklahoma was more convenient because the alleged abuse occurred in Muskogee, relevant witnesses and documents were likely in Oklahoma, Oklahoma law would likely apply, Harding had filed similar actions in Oklahoma, and he was incarcerated in Oklahoma.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of Oklahoma under the federal transfer statute. The order closed the Southern District of New York case, said that the transferee court would decide whether Harding could proceed without paying filing fees, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Harding v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-03814
- Laura Swain
- June 28, 2022
Background
William L. Harding, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, brought a diversity action against Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. and Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses of New York Inc. He alleged that he was sexually abused by a Jehovah’s Witness elder when he was a child in Muskogee, Oklahoma. He sought to hold the defendants responsible based on his allegation that they were responsible for the overall appointment and placement of elders and ministerial servants worldwide.
Venue and Transfer Analysis
The court determined that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Harding alleged that the defendants resided there. Venue was also proper in the Eastern District of Oklahoma under § 1391(b)(2) because the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Muskogee, which is in that district.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case filed in a proper venue to another district where it could have been brought when the transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court found transfer appropriate because the alleged events occurred in Muskogee; relevant documents and witnesses were reasonably expected to be in Oklahoma; Oklahoma law, including Oklahoma’s statute of limitations, would likely govern; Harding had previously filed similar actions against the defendants in Oklahoma federal and state courts; and Harding was incarcerated in Oklahoma. Because Harding did not reside in New York and the events did not occur there, the court gave his choice of the New York forum less weight.
Disposition
The court ordered the action transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. It directed the Clerk of Court to carry out the transfer, stated that the transferee court would decide whether Harding could proceed without prepaying fees, and ordered that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York. 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 order did not decide the merits of Harding’s abuse-related claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.