Cheng v. Mautz
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-02151
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cheng v. Mautz, Judge Woods transferred Cheng’s action to Washington and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Sheng-Wen Cheng’s case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Western District of Washington; Jeremy Mautz will face the action in the receiving district, and Cheng cannot proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal from this order.
What happened
In Cheng v. Mautz, Sheng-Wen Cheng, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued Jeremy Mautz over state-law claims arising from a business transaction. The court noted that Cheng did not clearly show that the relevant events occurred in the Southern District of New York, while Mautz resides in Tacoma, Washington.
The court ruled that the Western District of Washington was a proper venue and would be more convenient for the case. It therefore transferred the action there and closed the case in the Southern District of New York. The court also directed that no summons issue from that court.
Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the transfer order on April 3, 2023. The court had previously allowed Cheng to proceed without paying filing fees, but denied that status for purposes of any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Cheng v. Mautz · No. 1:23-cv-02151
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 3, 2023
Background
Sheng-Wen Cheng, who is incarcerated at FCI Sandstone and is representing himself, brought state-law claims against Jeremy Mautz under the court’s diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. Cheng alleged that the claims arose from a business transaction and that negotiations occurred when he met Mautz “in New York” and by telephone. Cheng did not identify where in New York the negotiations occurred. The court had previously granted Cheng permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that venue is proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Mautz was alleged to reside in Tacoma, Washington, which is in the Western District of Washington. The court therefore found that venue was proper there. Because Cheng did not allege that the relevant negotiations occurred in the Southern District of New York, the court found it unclear whether venue was proper in that district based on the events.
The court also considered transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to another proper district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It concluded that the Western District of Washington appeared to be more convenient because Mautz resides there. The court also stated that neither district would be more inconvenient for Cheng because he is incarcerated. The court noted that Cheng alleged he retained a New York domicile despite his incarceration in Minnesota, but that he had been ordered removed from the United States after completing his prison term.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Clerk was directed to transfer the action, no summons was to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case in that district. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Cheng permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Cheng’s state-law claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.