Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 29, 2022

Muminovic v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-07291
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Muminovic v. Blizzard Entertainment, Judge Swain transferred the case to California because venue was improper in New York.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.; the case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Central District of California.

What happened

In Muminovic v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., the plaintiff brought a case seeking what appeared to be money damages and a court declaration against Blizzard Entertainment. The plaintiff did not allege that Blizzard lived in New York or that the events underlying the claims occurred there.

The court explained that federal law allows a civil case to proceed where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred. Because the complaint did not show that venue was proper in New York, the court found that the case belonged in the federal court covering Irvine, California, where Blizzard was alleged to reside.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The New York court closed the case there, left any decision about proceeding without prepaying fees to the receiving court, and denied fee-free status for an appeal from the transfer order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Muminovic v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07291
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Aug. 29, 2022

Background

Ing. Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Elhar Muminovic filed this self-represented action against Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. The opinion says that Muminovic resides in Linz, Austria and that Blizzard is located in Irvine, California. The complaint appeared to seek monetary damages and declaratory relief.

Venue analysis

Venue is the federal district where a civil case may properly be heard. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue generally may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying the claims occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.

The court held that the complaint did not allege that Blizzard resided in the Southern District of New York or that any events giving rise to the claims occurred there. The court therefore concluded that venue was not proper in that district under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in the wrong venue, the court may dismiss it or, if justice requires, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. Because Muminovic alleged that Blizzard resided in Irvine, which is in the Central District of California, Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The order directed the Clerk to transfer the action and stated that the New York court would not issue a summons. It also stated that the receiving court would decide whether Muminovic could proceed without prepaying fees. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.