Ditto v. Peterson Properties
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ditto v. Peterson Properties, Judge Swain transferred the pro se action to California because the events, apartment, defendants, witnesses, and documents were there.
Frank Ditto and Julie Ditto must pursue this action, if permitted to proceed, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Peterson Properties, Peterson Property Management, Ted Peterson, Steve Peterson, and Does 1–10 are affected because the case was transferred there. The receiving court will decide whether the plaintiffs may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
Ditto v. Peterson Properties concerns Frank Ditto and Julie Ditto’s pro se lawsuit about their rental of an apartment in Oakland, California. They filed the action in the Southern District of New York and provided a New York post-office box as their address.
The court noted that the plaintiffs had filed a substantially similar earlier complaint involving the same defendants, which the court had transferred to the Northern District of California. The court also determined that the events occurred in Oakland, where the apartment was located, most defendants appeared to reside, and relevant documents and witnesses were likely located.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred this action to the Northern District of California under the federal law allowing transfer for convenience and fairness. The Southern District of New York closed the case, did not issue a summons, and left any decision about proceeding without prepaying fees to the receiving court; it also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Ditto v. Peterson Properties · No. 1:22-cv-05283
- Laura Swain
- June 29, 2022
Background
Frank Ditto and Julie Ditto filed this pro se action against Peterson Properties; Peterson Property Management; Ted Peterson; Steve Peterson; and Does 1–10. They alleged that the defendants violated their rights in connection with the plaintiffs’ rental of an apartment in Oakland, California. The plaintiffs listed a New York post-office box as their address.
The plaintiffs had previously filed a virtually identical complaint against the same defendants. In that earlier round, this court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Transfer Analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” The court explained that district courts have broad, case-by-case discretion under that provision and may order a transfer on their own initiative.
The court found transfer appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Oakland, where the apartment was located. Most defendants appeared to reside there, and the court reasonably expected that the relevant documents and witnesses would also be in Oakland. The court also relied on the fact that the plaintiffs had filed a substantially similar action that this court had already transferred to the Northern District of California. It treated that district as the favored forum under the first-filed rule, which generally favors the court where a related case was filed first.
Ruling and Disposition
The court transferred the action under Section 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Clerk was directed to carry out the transfer. The court stated that the receiving court would decide whether the plaintiffs could proceed without prepaying fees, and that no summons would issue from the Southern District of New York. The order closed this case.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.