Singer v. Ett

Background

Jonathan Singer and other petitioners filed the action seeking a permanent stay of arbitration proceedings pending in California against them and non-movant Spirit Music Collective, LLC. Alan Ett filed an answer asserting five affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, unclean hands, and estoppel or waiver.

The petitioners moved for a permanent stay. The parties’ initial submissions addressed several defenses but did not fully address venue. The court then ordered the parties to explain why venue was proper in the Southern District of New York or why the case should not be transferred to the Central District of California or dismissed.

Venue Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss or transfer a case filed in the wrong district.

The petitioners argued that venue was proper in New York because Singer was there while negotiating the relevant agreements and committing allegedly tortious acts, and because Spirit and Lyric had headquarters there during the alleged copyright infringement. Ett argued that venue was improper and requested dismissal or transfer.

Ruling

The court transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It held that venue was improper under § 1391(b)(1) because Ett was domiciled in Los Angeles, California, rather than in the Southern District of New York. It also held that venue was improper under § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the relevant events did not occur in New York.

The court noted that the only relief sought was a stay of arbitration that Ett had commenced in Los Angeles. The arbitration arose from an employment agreement between Ett and Spirit Music Collective that was entered into in California. Spirit Music Collective’s principal place of business was in Los Angeles; the agreement required arbitration in Los Angeles, included a California choice-of-law provision, and specified certain California courts as forums for enforcement actions. The Clerk of Court was directed to transfer the case.