Hirsch v. Butterman

Background

Elliot M. Hirsch, representing himself, sued Jay R. Butterman under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Hirsch asserted defamation and false-light claims based on an affirmation Butterman filed in a civil proceeding in the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County. The opinion states that Butterman was Hirsch’s wife’s divorce attorney. Hirsch also requested an order concerning preliminary injunctive relief, meaning temporary relief while the case was pending.

The court had already allowed Hirsch to proceed without paying the ordinary filing fees. The court’s discussion concerned where the case should be heard; it did not decide whether the alleged statements were defamatory or created false light.

Venue and Transfer Analysis

The court explained that venue can be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. Hirsch alleged, on information and belief, that Butterman lived in Manhattan. The court stated that, if that allegation were correct, venue could be proper in the Southern District of New York.

The court also concluded that venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York because the affirmation was filed in a Kings County court as part of an ongoing proceeding there. Hirsch argued that venue was proper in the Southern District because Butterman sent the affirmation from Manhattan and it was received by an attorney working there. Hirsch also argued that venue could be proper in New Jersey because he experienced the alleged harm there.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another district where it could have been brought when doing so would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court considered the connection to Kings County, the likely location of relevant documents and witnesses, Hirsch’s choice of forum, the fact that Hirsch did not reside in the Southern District, and the existence of potentially related matters in the Eastern District. It declined to transfer the case to New Jersey because related actions Hirsch had filed there had previously been consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District.

Ruling and Effect

The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Section 1404(a). The opinion does not resolve the defamation or false-light claims. It states that the Eastern District would decide Hirsch’s application for preliminary injunctive relief. The Southern District’s Clerk of Court was directed to transfer the action, no summons was to issue from that court, and the order closed the case in the Southern District of New York.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Hirsch permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The opinion does not state how the Eastern District ruled on the request for preliminary relief or on the underlying claims.