Gowans v. Jaddou
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-09635
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gowans v. Jaddou, Judge Furman transferred the case to the District of Columbia after the defendant challenged venue and the plaintiff effectively consented.
Jody E. Gowans and Ur Mendoza Jaddou were affected by the transfer from the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Pending deadlines became moot, and the case was closed in the Southern District of New York.
What happened
In Gowans v. Jaddou, the defendant argued that the Southern District of New York was not the proper place for the case and asked either for dismissal or transfer to the District of Columbia.
The plaintiff did not challenge the defendant’s arguments and said she would accept a transfer if the court found it fair. The court therefore transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, making all pending deadlines moot and closing the case in New York.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the transfer in the interest of justice. The order did not decide the underlying legal dispute.
The detailed version
- Gowans v. Jaddou · No. 1:22-cv-09635
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 28, 2022
Background
The defendant filed a letter-motion arguing that venue—the proper federal court location for the case—was improper in the Southern District of New York. The defendant requested either dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), which addresses improper venue, or transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Plaintiff’s Response
The plaintiff did not challenge the defendant’s substantive arguments. In her response, she stated that she would accept the court’s judgment if the court decided that moving the case to the District of Columbia was just and fair. The court treated this response as effective consent to transfer.
Ruling
The court found that transferring the case to the District of Columbia was in the interest of justice and ordered that the case be transferred there. The court declared all pending deadlines moot, directed the Clerk to transfer the case immediately and without regard to Local Rule 83.1, terminated the defendant’s letter-motion, and closed the case. The order transferred the case without deciding the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.