Keita v. Nerdrez
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-02103
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Keita v. Nerdrez, Judge Swain transferred the mortgage case to the Eastern District of New York because the underlying events occurred there.
Mohammed Keita and his minor children, along with the defendants, are affected because the action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The transferee court will decide whether Keita may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Keita v. Nerdrez, Mohammed Keita, representing himself and his minor children, sued several defendants over the servicing of a mortgage on property in Staten Island, New York.
The court said it was unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York, but found that the Eastern District of New York was a proper and more convenient venue because the property and underlying events were in Richmond County.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York, closed the action in the Southern District, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Keita v. Nerdrez · No. 1:23-cv-02103
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 21, 2023
Background
Mohammed Keita, who was proceeding without a lawyer, brought the action on behalf of himself and his minor children. He asserted federal-question and diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction and alleged claims arising from the servicing of a mortgage loan on property in Staten Island, Richmond County, New York.
The defendants identified in the opinion were Nerdrez, also known as PHH Mortgage; McCabe, Weisberg, and Conway, LLC; First American Title Insurance of New York; and the United States Internal Revenue Service.
Venue and Transfer
The court considered the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. It explained that venue may be proper where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred. The opinion stated that nothing in the complaint suggested that the events occurred in the Southern District of New York. It also said that Keita had not specifically pleaded facts showing where the defendants resided or whether they were subject to personal jurisdiction in that district, so it was unclear whether venue was proper there on that basis.
The court nevertheless concluded that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be a proper venue because the claims arose in Richmond County, where Keita resided and where the mortgaged property was located. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another proper district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court found that transfer was appropriate and that the Eastern District appeared to be a more convenient forum.
Order
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Clerk of Court was directed to make the transfer, and summonses were not to issue from the Southern District. The order closed the action in the Southern District, while leaving any decision about whether Keita could proceed without prepaying fees to the transferee 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.