Cortez v. Barton
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06954
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cortez v. Barton, Judge Swain transferred the plaintiffs’ action from New York to the Northern District of Texas.
Leland Cortez and Sofia Abbas, and the four defendant deputies, because the case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Texas.
What happened
In Cortez v. Barton, Leland Cortez and Sofia Abbas, proceeding without lawyers, sued four Hood County, Texas, sheriff’s deputies. They alleged that events in Granbury, Texas, involved false statements leading to Cortez’s arrest and Abbas’s detention, along with the detention of Cortez’s two nephews.
The court concluded that the Northern District of Texas was a proper and more convenient location because the events occurred there and relevant witnesses and documents were likely there. The plaintiffs did not live in New York, and the court gave their choice of the Southern District of New York less weight.
Judge Swain ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York, left any decision about fee payment to the transferee court, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Cortez v. Barton · No. 1:22-cv-06954
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 16, 2022
Background
Leland Cortez and Sofia Abbas, who reside in Granbury, Texas, brought the action without lawyers against Canaan Barton, Shelly Israel, Tyler Smith, and N. Hagin. The opinion identifies the defendants as deputies from the Hood County Sheriff’s Office in Hood County, Texas. Plaintiffs alleged that their claims arose on March 14, 2021, in Granbury. They alleged that defendants made false statements that resulted in Cortez’s arrest and the detention of Abbas and Cortez’s two nephews.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action to be brought where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The plaintiffs provided addresses for the defendants at the Hood County Sheriff’s Office but did not allege where the defendants were domiciled, so the court could not determine whether venue was proper under the residence-based provision.
The court found that venue was proper in the Northern District of Texas because the alleged events occurred in Hood County, which lies in that district’s Dallas Division. Under the federal transfer statute, a court may move a case to another district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, even if venue is proper where the case was filed. The court considered the location of the events, the likely location of witnesses and documents, and the plaintiffs’ limited connection to New York. It concluded that the Northern District of Texas appeared to be the more convenient forum.
Disposition
The court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether the plaintiffs could proceed without paying filing fees, and it directed that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.