Keita v. The Amazon Corporation Headquarters
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03217
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Keita v. The Amazon Corporation Headquarters, Judge Swain transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York because venue was improper.
Mohammed Keita, The Amazon Corporation Headquarters, and Jeff Bezos; the case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York without a decision on the claims.
What happened
In Keita v. The Amazon Corporation Headquarters, Mohammed Keita, representing himself, sued The Amazon Corporation Headquarters and Jeff Bezos. He alleged billing and Federal Trade Commission law violations and said the events occurred in Staten Island.
The Southern District of New York found that Staten Island is in the Eastern District of New York and that the complaint did not show that venue was proper in the Southern District. The court therefore did not decide whether Keita’s claims were valid.
Judge Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York and closed it in the Southern District of New York. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal and said a summons would not issue from that court.
The detailed version
- Keita v. The Amazon Corporation Headquarters · No. 1:23-cv-03217
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
Mohammed Keita, proceeding without a lawyer, sued The Amazon Corporation Headquarters and Jeff Bezos. He invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and alleged “Violation of Federal Truth in Billing Disclosures Act, Deceptive Billing Practices, and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Law.” The opinion states that Keita resides in Staten Island, New York; that the defendants are located in Seattle, Washington; and that the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Staten Island, Richmond County, New York.
Venue analysis
Venue is the legally proper federal district for a case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue may be proper where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. The court determined that Staten Island is within the Eastern District of New York and that the complaint contained no allegations showing that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in the wrong venue, the court may dismiss it or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The court chose transfer because the claims allegedly arose in Staten Island.
Ruling
The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York, and a summons would not issue from that court. The opinion did not decide the merits of Keita’s billing or Federal Trade Commission allegations. It stated that whether Keita could proceed without prepaying filing fees would be decided by the Eastern District of New York.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.