Kerames v. Wells Fargo
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-08672
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Kerames v. Wells Fargo, Judge Swain denied reconsideration of transferring the case to Connecticut and left the transfer in place.
Harry Kerames's case remains transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and the action is closed in the Southern District of New York. Wells Fargo is affected because the requested return of the case to New York was denied.
What happened
In Kerames v. Wells Fargo, Harry Kerames, who was representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision transferring his case to the District of Connecticut. The earlier order had treated his claims as state-law claims and found that New York was not a proper venue based on the allegations then presented.
Kerames said for the first time that he and Wells Fargo had agreed to bring the case in New York. He also cited other alleged connections involving New York, Australian court cases, and financial matters, but he provided no supporting facts or documents for the alleged agreement.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the reconsideration motion. The court held that Kerames had not shown that it overlooked controlling law or facts, and stated that the case was closed in the Southern District of New York.
The detailed version
- Kerames v. Wells Fargo · No. 1:22-cv-08672
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 25, 2022
Background
Harry Kerames filed a complaint against Wells Fargo and represented himself. In an October 21, 2022 order, the court treated the complaint as asserting state-law claims under the court's diversity jurisdiction and transferred the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The court had found that the complaint identified the property at issue as being in Connecticut and alleged that Wells Fargo was located in San Francisco, California. It determined that the Northern District of California and the District of Connecticut were proper venues under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), but that Kerames's allegation that Wells Fargo had substantial interests and ties to New York did not establish that New York was a proper venue.
Three days later, Kerames filed an "Objection to Change of Venue." He asserted for the first time that he and Wells Fargo had agreed to file the case in New York. He also referred to alleged connections with actions in Australian courts, a Financial Times article, cases involving Credit Suisse investors, and loans allegedly connected to the New York area. The opinion states that he did not identify when the alleged agreement with Wells Fargo was made and did not provide facts or documents showing that it existed.
Reconsideration standard
The court treated Kerames's objection as a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 because he was representing himself. Such a motion requires the moving party to show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that had previously been presented. The court explained that reconsideration motions are narrowly applied and are not an opportunity to present new theories or evidence after the court has ruled.
Ruling
The court held that Kerames had not shown that it overlooked controlling law or facts when it transferred the case. His alleged agreement with Wells Fargo had not appeared in the complaint and was presented for the first time in the objection, without supporting evidence. The court therefore denied Kerames's motion for reconsideration.
The court stated that the action was closed in the Southern District of New York. The Clerk would accept only documents directed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in this action. The court also warned that filing frivolous or meritless documents could lead to an order requiring Kerames to explain why he should not be barred from filing further documents. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.