Keita v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,et al
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-10268
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Keita v. Liberty Mutual: Judge Swain transferred the insurance dispute to the Eastern District of New York because Staten Island was the case’s central location.
Mohammed Keita and his minor children must pursue the action, if allowed to proceed, in the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York. The defendants are Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., American Security Insurance Co., and American Arbitration Association.
What happened
In Keita v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Mohammed Keita, representing himself and his minor children, sued three defendants over insurance claims involving losses from Superstorm Sandy and an alleged 2015 settlement-agreement breach.
The court said the alleged events and insured properties were in Staten Island, which is in the Eastern District of New York. It concluded that district appeared to be a proper and more convenient place for the case, without deciding whether the insurance claims were valid.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York. She left the decision about whether Keita may proceed without paying filing fees to the receiving court, directed that summonses not issue from the Southern District, closed the case there, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Keita v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,et al · No. 1:22-cv-10268
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 9, 2022
Background
Mohammed Keita, proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action for himself and his minor children. He asserted federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and alleged breach of contract and other claims based on the defendants’ alleged failure to fully pay insurance claims for losses from Superstorm Sandy involving properties in Staten Island, Richmond County, New York. He also alleged that the defendants breached a 2015 settlement agreement.
Venue analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which identifies districts where a civil action may be filed, including a district where a substantial part of the events occurred. The court noted that Keita alleged he lived in Staten Island and that the insured properties and apparently a substantial part of the events underlying the claims were there. Staten Island is in Richmond County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. Based on the complaint, the court said venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York under Section 1391(b)(1) or (2), while the Eastern District appeared to be a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(2).
The court also considered 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to another district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, even if venue was proper in the original district. The court concluded that transfer appeared appropriate because the underlying events, Keita’s residence, and the properties involved were in Richmond County. It also noted that the Eastern District appeared to be a more convenient forum and referenced potentially related earlier actions there without deciding whether they were related.
Ruling and disposition
The court ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It did not decide the merits of Keita’s insurance or settlement claims. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Keita could proceed without prepaying filing fees. It directed that summonses not issue from the Southern District of New York and stated that the order closed the action in that court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.