Wright v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co.
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-02565
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wright v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., Judge Swain transferred the case to South Carolina because New York was an improper venue.
Jethro Wright’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the District of South Carolina. The order affected Wright and the defendants by changing the court handling the action; it did not decide the underlying property dispute.
What happened
In Wright v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., Jethro Wright sued the bank, William Keohler, and an unidentified defendant over efforts allegedly aimed at ending his ownership of South Carolina property.
Wright filed the case without a lawyer in the Southern District of New York, but the events and property involved were in South Carolina. The court also noted that Wright had not shown that the unknown defendant’s residence supported venue in New York.
Judge Swain transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina under the federal venue statute. The New York court closed the case there, left any decision about proceeding without paying filing fees to the receiving court, and denied fee-free status for an appeal from the transfer order.
The detailed version
- Wright v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. · No. 1:23-cv-02565
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 4, 2023
Background
Jethro Wright filed this action without a lawyer, invoking diversity jurisdiction. He sued Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. as Trustee for Mortgage Assets Management Series I Trust; William Keohler, Esq.; and an unidentified John Doe defendant. His claims arose from the defendants’ alleged efforts to end his ownership of real property on St. Helena Island, South Carolina. He sought more than $75,000 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, and other relief.
Venue analysis
The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred or the property is located, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. Wright alleged that the bank resided in New York and that Keohler resided in South Carolina, but he did not allege where John Doe resided. The court therefore found that he had not shown venue was proper in the Southern District of New York under the residence-based provision.
Wright alleged that the events supporting his claims occurred in Beaufort County, South Carolina, and that the property was there. The court concluded that New York was not a proper venue under the property-and-events provision, while the District of South Carolina was a proper venue.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong venue when transferring it serves the interests of justice. The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. It directed the clerk to make the transfer, stated that summonses would not issue from the New York court, and closed the action in that court. The receiving court would decide whether Wright could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal from the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.