Sung v. DeJoy
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-10189
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sung v. DeJoy, Judge Swain transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York because Queens events made it more appropriate.
Mo Chiao Sung’s employment claims were transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York; the order also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Sung v. DeJoy, Mo Chiao Sung, representing himself, sued Louis DeJoy and other defendants under several federal employment-discrimination laws. The claims arose from events connected to Sung’s employment at a Postal Service office in Flushing, Queens County, New York.
The court determined that the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue for all of the claims. Although at least some claims could be heard in the Southern District of New York, the court found that the events and employment were connected to Queens and that Sung did not live in the Southern District.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York under the federal transfer law. The court closed the case in the Southern District, directed that no summons issue there, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Sung v. DeJoy · No. 1:22-cv-10189
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 9, 2022
Background
Mo Chiao Sung filed this action without a lawyer against Louis DeJoy and other defendants. He invoked several federal employment laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The opinion states that his claims arose from his employment at the United States Postal Service Municipal Post Office in Flushing, Queens County, New York. Sung resides in Mineola, Nassau County, New York.
Venue analysis
For the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Section 1981 claims, the court applied the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The court explained that venue generally may 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.
Title VII has its own venue provision, which also applies to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The court concluded that because the alleged events occurred in Queens County, venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York for all of Sung’s claims. The court also concluded that the Southern District of New York was proper for at least some claims, although it did not appear that venue for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Section 1981 claims was proper there based on where the events occurred. Because Sung did not identify where the defendants were domiciled, the court stated that it was unclear whether those claims could be brought in the Southern District under the defendant-residence provision.
Transfer ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, even when the original venue is proper. The court considered the connection of the underlying events and Sung’s employment to Queens County. It gave less weight to Sung’s choice of the Southern District because he did not reside in that district and the operative events did not occur there.
The court ordered the action transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Clerk was directed to transfer the action, no summons was to issue from the Southern District, and the order closed the case there. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
The action was transferred to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The opinion did not decide the merits of Sung’s employment claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.