Kong v. Dajin Realty, Inc.

Background

Aixiang Kong initially filed the action, then amended the complaint and added Lingxi Kong as a plaintiff. On February 17, 2023, the court dismissed the claims against Malaika Scott-McLaughlin, Maria Ressos, Clinton Guthrie, the Bronx Housing Civil Court, and the Queens Housing Civil Court, collectively called the Judicial Defendants. The court stated that those claims were barred by immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The plaintiffs later filed a letter asking the court to reconsider that dismissal.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court denied the motion for reconsideration. Local Civil Rule 6.3 requires such a motion to be filed within 14 days of the court’s decision. The plaintiffs filed their request more than a month after the February 17 dismissal and had not requested more time.

The court also denied reconsideration on the merits of the request. It explained that the Ninth Amendment is not an independent source of individual rights and that the plaintiffs had not shown that it limited Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court further concluded that the judicial acts identified by the plaintiffs—such as deciding whether a case could proceed or whether the court had jurisdiction—were acts related to individual cases and were judicial in nature. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) prevented the earlier dismissal, explaining that the rule was not the only basis for dismissing a claim without a motion from the defendants.

Transfer of Venue

The court ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court found that the Southern District of New York had little connection to the dispute, while the Eastern District had stronger connections: Dajin Realty was based there, one plaintiff resided there, and the claims arose from leases for apartments located there. The plaintiffs had also stated that the Southern District was an inappropriate venue.

The defendants told the court that the plaintiffs had filed a new complaint in the Eastern District of New York. The court recommended referring this case to Judge Nina R. Morrison as related to that Eastern District case because the defendants, factual circumstances, and requested punitive damages were the same. The Clerk was directed to terminate open motions and transfer the case immediately, and the usual seven-day waiting period was waived.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and ordered the matter transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The opinion does not rule on the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss; instead, it directs that the case be transferred and recommends related-case treatment.