Hirsch v. Butterman
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-08093
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hirsch v. Butterman, Chief Judge Swain transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York for convenience.
Elliot M. Hirsch’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. Jay R. Butterman remains the defendant, and the Eastern District will decide whether Hirsch may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
Hirsch v. Butterman concerns claims by Elliot M. Hirsch against Jay R. Butterman arising from divorce proceedings in Kings County, New York. Hirsch, representing himself, alleged emotional distress, defamation, and violations of New York Judiciary Law § 487.
The court explained that venue could be proper in either district under different circumstances, but the events underlying the claims largely occurred in Kings County. The court also noted that relevant documents and witnesses would likely be there and that Hirsch did not live in the Southern District of New York.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The Southern District action was closed, no summons would issue there, and the transferee court would decide whether Hirsch could proceed without paying filing fees. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Hirsch v. Butterman · No. 1:22-cv-08093
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 22, 2022
Background
Elliot M. Hirsch filed this action against Jay R. Butterman and invoked the court’s authority to hear disputes between citizens of different states. Hirsch represented himself. He asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and violations of New York Judiciary Law § 487. The claims arose from Butterman’s actions during divorce proceedings in the New York Supreme Court for Kings County, including statements in a written affirmation and statements at oral argument.
Venue and Transfer
The court discussed the federal venue statute, which generally permits a case to be filed where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events occurred. Hirsch alleged, based on information and belief, that Butterman resided in Manhattan, which could make venue proper in the Southern District of New York. But because the claims arose substantially from events in Kings County, venue was also proper in the Eastern District of New York.
The court then applied the federal transfer statute, 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 found that transfer appeared appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Kings County, and relevant documents and witnesses could be located there. The court also gave less weight to Hirsch’s choice of the Southern District because he did not live there and the operative events occurred largely outside that district. The court noted that Hirsch had other potentially related matters pending in the Eastern District.
Ruling
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York, stated that no summons would issue from that court, and left to the transferee court the question whether Hirsch could proceed without prepaying fees. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Disposition
The action was transferred to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.