Keita v. State Farm Insurance

Background

Mohammed Keita filed this action without a lawyer, invoking federal-question and diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. He sued State Farm Insurance, Progressive Insurance, Armando Berrios, POM Michael A. Meyerson, and Sgt. Thomas N. Garguilo. Keita alleged claims involving an automobile accident, bodily and physical injuries, economic losses, alleged insurance nonpayment, misrepresentation, and an allegedly inaccurate police report.

The opinion states that Keita alleged he lived in Staten Island, New York. He also alleged that State Farm Insurance, Progressive Insurance, and Armando Berrios were located, respectively, in Phoenix, Arizona; Albany, New York; and Staten Island, New York. He alleged that Meyerson and Garguilo were assigned to the 120th Precinct in Staten Island and that the events giving rise to his claims occurred in Staten Island, Richmond County.

Venue Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue may be proper where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events occurred. The court concluded that Staten Island is within the Eastern District of New York and that the alleged events occurred there. It therefore found that the Eastern District of New York was the proper venue under § 1391(b)(2), while the complaint did not allege facts showing that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in the wrong venue, the court may dismiss it or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The court chose transfer rather than dismissal.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order closes the action in the Southern District of New York, but it does not decide the underlying automobile-accident, insurance, or police-report claims. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Keita could proceed without prepaying fees, and it ordered that a summons would not issue from the Southern District of New York.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not state that the Eastern District of New York had ruled on the merits.