Balash-Ioannidou v. Contour Mortgage Corporation
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-06242
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Balash-Ioannidou v. Contour Mortgage, Judge Vyskocil transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York because Queens was more convenient.
The transfer affects Anna T. Balash-Ioannidou and the defendants, Contour Mortgage Corporation and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB. The case will proceed, if at all, in the Eastern District of New York, where that court will decide any request for preliminary injunctive relief.
What happened
In Balash-Ioannidou v. Contour Mortgage Corporation, Anna T. Balash-Ioannidou brought a self-represented lawsuit seeking court orders concerning foreclosure proceedings involving property in Astoria, Queens County, New York.
The court explained that the defendants’ addresses were unknown, but the events underlying the lawsuit occurred in Queens, where the property and state-court foreclosure proceedings were located. It therefore found that the Eastern District of New York was a more convenient forum and transferred the action there.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the transfer, stated that the receiving court would decide any request for an early injunction, and directed that no summons issue from the Southern District. The order closed the case in that court and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Balash-Ioannidou v. Contour Mortgage Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-06242
- Vyskocil
- July 25, 2022
Background
Anna T. Balash-Ioannidou, who the opinion says lives in Astoria, Queens County, New York, filed a self-represented lawsuit against Contour Mortgage Corporation and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB. She invoked the court’s authority over disputes between citizens of different states and sought declaratory and injunctive relief concerning foreclosure proceedings involving real property in Astoria. She alleged that both defendants were corporations registered in Delaware but did not provide their addresses.
Venue and Transfer
The court considered the federal venue statute, which allows a civil case to be filed in certain districts connected to the defendants or to the events giving rise to the claims. Because the defendants’ residences were unknown, the court said it was unclear whether venue was proper in either the Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of New York based on the defendants’ residence. The court nevertheless explained that venue was proper in the Eastern District under the provision covering the district where a substantial part of the events occurred, because Queens County is in that district.
The court also applied the statute allowing transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, even when venue in the original court is proper. It found that the underlying events occurred in Queens, where the plaintiff lived, the property was located, and the foreclosure proceedings were pending in New York State Supreme Court. The court considered it reasonable to expect that relevant documents and witnesses would also be in Queens. It concluded that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be the more convenient forum.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. The clerk was directed to transfer the action, no summons was to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case in that court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.