Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 4, 2023

Wright v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-02565
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

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.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Wright v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. · No. 1:23-cv-02565
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.