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-servicing case from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District.
Mohammed Keita and his minor children, as well as the defendants, are affected by the transfer from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The opinion does not decide the underlying mortgage-servicing claims.
What happened
In Keita v. Nerdrez, Mohammed Keita sued several defendants over the servicing of a mortgage loan on property in Staten Island, New York. He brought the case for himself and his minor children and represented himself without a lawyer.
The court concluded that the underlying events occurred in Richmond County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. It therefore found that the Eastern District appeared to be a more convenient and proper venue and transferred the action there.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the clerk to transfer the action, stated that the transferee court would decide whether Keita could proceed without prepaying fees, and ordered that summonses would not issue from the Southern District of New York. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal and closed the action in that court.
The detailed version
- Keita v. Nerdrez · No. 1:23-cv-02103
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 5, 2023
Background
Mohammed Keita, representing himself, brought this action on behalf of himself and his minor children. He invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and asserted 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 Analysis
The court considered the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. It stated that the complaint did not suggest that events giving rise to the claims 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 under one provision of the statute.
The court determined that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be a proper venue because the claims arose in Richmond County. It also applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer to another district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court found that the events occurred in Richmond County, where Keita resides and where the mortgaged property is located, making the Eastern District appear more convenient.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The clerk was directed to carry out the transfer. The opinion states that the transferee court would decide whether Keita could proceed without prepaying fees, and that summonses would not issue from the Southern District of New York. The court closed the action in that district. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.