Both v. Pacific Medical Revenue, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-09933
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Both v. Pacific Medical Revenue, Judge Swain transferred the case for improper venue, but the order names conflicting destination courts.
John Both, Pacific Medical Revenue, Inc., and Ethne Nance. The case was transferred out of the Southern District of New York without a ruling on the underlying claims; the opinion gives conflicting instructions about whether the receiving court should be in the Eastern District of Virginia or the Eastern District of New York.
What happened
In Both v. Pacific Medical Revenue, Inc., John Both sued Pacific Medical Revenue, Inc. and Ethne Nance. He alleged that the defendants failed to return business records and sought the records plus $380,000 in damages. The opinion states that the alleged events occurred in Woodbridge, Virginia.
The court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York and that the case belonged in the Eastern District of Virginia. It transferred the action instead of dismissing it, but the opinion contains a conflicting instruction: its discussion says Eastern District of Virginia, while its conclusion directs transfer to the Eastern District of New York.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain closed the case in the Southern District of New York, directed that no summons issue there, and left any decision about proceeding without paying filing fees to the receiving court. She also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Both v. Pacific Medical Revenue, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09933
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 7, 2022
Background
John Both filed this action without a lawyer, invoking federal jurisdiction based on the parties' citizenship. He alleged that Pacific Medical Revenue, Inc. and its president, Ethne Nance, operated a billing service and failed to return unspecified business records. Both sought the return of those records and $380,000 in damages. The complaint identified Both's current residence as Mineola, New York, and gave Woodbridge, Virginia addresses for both defendants. The opinion also notes that a document attached to the complaint listed a North Carolina address for Both.
Venue analysis
Venue is the legally proper federal court location for a case. The court explained that federal law generally allows a civil action where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events or property involved is located, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction.
The court found that Both did not plead the defendants' residences, although he alleged that the events giving rise to his claims occurred in Woodbridge, Virginia. Because Nance worked at Pacific Medical Revenue, Inc., which the opinion says was located in Woodbridge, and because the alleged events occurred there, the court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York. It determined that Prince William County, Virginia, falls within the Eastern District of Virginia and that venue was proper there.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong venue or transfer it to a proper district when doing so serves the interests of justice. The court stated that, in the interest of justice, it was transferring the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. However, the conclusion directs the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The opinion does not explain or resolve this conflicting destination instruction.
The order closes the case in the Southern District of New York, states that a summons will not issue from that court, and leaves the question whether Both may proceed without paying filing fees to the transferee court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.