Sarner v. Fillas
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06035
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sarner v. Fillas, Judge Swain transferred the pro se plaintiff’s case from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York.
Philip Sarner and the four defendants—Sacco & Fillas, David Silverman, Sibowitz, Garafola, Sibowitz & Schatz, and Howard Schatz—are affected by the transfer of the action to the Eastern District of New York. The order did not decide the underlying allegations.
What happened
In Sarner v. Fillas, Philip Sarner sued two law firms and two attorneys, alleging that they missed the deadline for filing a personal-injury lawsuit arising from his slip-and-fall accident in Brooklyn.
The court explained that the accident and related events occurred in the Eastern District of New York, where Brooklyn, Queens County, and Nassau County are located. It also found that relevant witnesses and documents would likely be there, although it was unclear where all defendants were domiciled.
The court transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York for convenience and in the interest of justice. Judge Laura Taylor Swain closed the case in the Southern District of New York, left any decision about proceeding without prepaying fees to the transferee court, and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Sarner v. Fillas · No. 1:22-cv-06035
- Laura Swain
- July 15, 2022
Background
Philip Sarner, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Sacco & Fillas; David Silverman; Sibowitz, Garafola, Sibowitz & Schatz; and Howard Schatz. Sarner invoked federal jurisdiction based on the parties’ citizenship and alleged that the defendants missed the deadline for filing a personal-injury lawsuit arising from his slip-and-fall accident in Brooklyn.
Sarner alleged that he consulted the defendant law firms. The opinion states that the firms are located in Queens and Nassau Counties and that Sarner provided addresses for the individual defendants in Bayside and Great Neck, New York. It was unclear whether those addresses were the individuals’ offices or homes.
Venue and Transfer
The court discussed the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. It concluded that venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York because the events underlying Sarner’s claims occurred there: he fell in Kings County, and he consulted the law firms in Queens and Nassau Counties.
The court then applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a court to transfer a case to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court determined that transfer was appropriate because Sarner did not reside in the Southern District of New York, the underlying events did not occur there, and relevant witnesses and documents were reasonably expected to be in the Eastern District.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk 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, and no summons was to issue from that court. The transferee court was left to decide whether Sarner could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.