Osby v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07660
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Osby v. City of New York: Judge Swain transferred Osby’s pension and retaliation claims to the Eastern District of New York.
Tammy S. Osby, the City of New York, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System; the case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York.
What happened
In Osby v. The City of New York, Tammy S. Osby alleged that her disability retirement pension was withheld and that the City retaliated against her because of her disability and age. The court understood her allegations as claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA.
The court found that the Eastern District of New York was a proper and more convenient venue. The New York City Employees’ Retirement System had offices there, both defendants could be found there, and the relevant events, documents, and witnesses were likely there. Osby did not live in the Southern District of New York, and the opinion said she did not allege that the plan was administered or that the alleged breach occurred there.
Judge Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York under a federal venue-transfer law. The Southern District directed that no summons issue, stated that the order closed the case there, and denied Osby’s permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Osby v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-07660
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 8, 2022
Background
Tammy S. Osby, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS). She alleged that her disability retirement pension was withheld and that the City retaliated against her based on her disability and age. She said the events occurred in Queens and Brooklyn, where NYCERS offices are located. The court construed her allegations as claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
Venue analysis
The court explained that ERISA permits an action to be brought where the plan is administered, where the alleged breach occurred, or where a defendant resides or may be found. Osby did not allege where the plan was administered or where the alleged breach occurred. She did allege that NYCERS was located in Long Island City, Queens, and in Brooklyn; both locations are in the Eastern District of New York. The court also stated that the City of New York resides in both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, so the Southern District was potentially a proper venue.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case, even from a proper venue, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court concluded that transfer was appropriate because both defendants resided or could be found in the Eastern District, the underlying events most likely occurred there, and relevant documents and witnesses were reasonably expected to be there. It found the Eastern District to be the more convenient forum.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It directed that a summons not issue from the Southern District and stated that the order closed the case there. The court noted that it had previously granted Osby permission to proceed without paying filing fees, but denied that status for purposes of an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.