Shine v. Anderson
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-00387
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Shine v. Anderson, Judge Swain ordered Shine to explain within 30 days why the case should not be transferred to Pennsylvania for venue reasons.
Larin Shine and Jamie Anderson. The order required Shine to explain why the case should remain in the Southern District of New York and warned that the court would otherwise transfer it to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
What happened
In Shine v. Anderson, Larin Shine, representing himself, sued Jamie Anderson for allegedly using a racial slur and telling Shine to “go hang from a tree” during an employment-related incident. Shine requested five million dollars in damages and filed the case in the Southern District of New York.
The court said Anderson resides in Pennsylvania, making the Eastern District of Pennsylvania a proper venue under the federal venue statute. But the complaint did not say where the alleged events occurred, so the court could not determine whether the Southern District of New York was also a proper venue.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain gave Shine 30 days to explain by declaration why the case should not be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court said it would transfer the case if Shine did not respond or did not show good cause, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Shine v. Anderson · No. 7:23-cv-00387
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 24, 2023
Background
Larin Shine filed this lawsuit without a lawyer, relying on the court’s authority over disputes between citizens of different states and seeking five million dollars in damages from Jamie Anderson. Shine alleged that on September 30, 2022, while Shine was working as a Verizon customer service agent, Anderson used a racial slur and told Shine to “go hang from a tree.” The court had previously allowed Shine to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.
Venue analysis
The court examined the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). That statute generally permits a case to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither of those options applies, where the defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
Shine alleged that Anderson resides in Newtown, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The court stated that this location is in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, making that district a proper venue under § 1391(b)(1). Shine also alleged residence in Mt. Vernon, Westchester County, New York, which is in the Southern District of New York, but did not identify where the events underlying the claims occurred. Because of that missing information, the court could not determine whether the Southern District of New York was a proper venue under § 1391(b)(2).
Order
The court granted Shine leave to show cause—meaning to explain why a particular action should not be taken—by filing a declaration within 30 days explaining why the case should not be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court described that district as the only proper venue it could identify from the complaint. It stated that, if Shine did not file the declaration on time or did not show good cause, the court would transfer the case there under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a).
The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of such an appeal. The order did not itself transfer the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.