Savvidis v. Bank of America NA
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-08982
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Savvidis v. Bank of America NA, Judge Swain transferred the fraud case from New York to Connecticut for convenience.
Alexandros Savvidis’s case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Bank of America NA remains the defendant, and the New York court closed the case without deciding the fraud claims.
What happened
Savvidis v. Bank of America NA concerns Alexandros Savvidis’s pro se fraud claims against Bank of America NA. Savvidis alleges that the fraud involved mortgaged real property in Norwalk, Connecticut, and the court treated the case as based on diversity jurisdiction.
The court explained that venue could be proper in Connecticut because the property and alleged events were there. It also considered whether transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court noted that the complaint invoked Connecticut law and that relevant documents and witnesses could be in Connecticut, while Savvidis identified no facts connecting the claims to New York beyond the bank’s ties there.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and directed that the New York case be closed. She also ruled that no summons would issue from the New York court and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Savvidis v. Bank of America NA · No. 1:22-cv-08982
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 31, 2022
Background
Alexandros Savvidis, who resides in Greece, filed this pro se action against Bank of America NA, asserting fraud claims. The opinion states that Savvidis paid the filing fees. The court construed the complaint as invoking federal diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction.
Savvidis alleges that Bank of America committed fraud concerning mortgaged real property located in Norwalk, Connecticut. He provided a Charlotte, North Carolina, address for the bank, which the opinion says appears to be the address of the bank’s national headquarters. Savvidis alleged that jurisdiction was proper in New York because the bank had substantial interests and ties to that state.
Venue and Transfer
The court discussed 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the federal venue statute. It explained that venue may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, when no other district qualifies, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. The court treated Savvidis’s allegation about the bank’s New York ties as an argument that venue was proper in New York because the bank was subject to personal jurisdiction there for this action.
The court stated that, even assuming personal jurisdiction over the bank and proper venue in New York, venue would also be proper in Connecticut because the claims concerned property located there. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another district where it could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice.
The court found that transfer appeared appropriate. It relied on the property’s location in Connecticut, the complaint’s invocation of Connecticut law, and the reasonable expectation that relevant documents and witnesses would also be in Connecticut. It also noted that Savvidis alleged no facts connecting the claims to New York other than the bank’s ties to that state.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. It ordered that no summons issue from the New York court and left the question of whether summonses should issue to the transferee court. The order states that the New York case is closed.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not decide whether Savvidis’s fraud claims have merit.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.