Keita v. Nike Corporate Office
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03248
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Keita v. Nike Corporate Office: Judge Swain transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York because Staten Island was the proper venue.
Mohammed Keita’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. Nike Corporate Office remains the defendant, and the order did not decide the merits of Keita’s claims.
What happened
In Keita v. Nike Corporate Office, Mohammed Keita alleged fraudulent and deceptive billing practices and violations of federal law against Nike. He filed the case in the Southern District of New York and represented himself without a lawyer.
The court determined that the alleged events occurred at Keita’s home in Staten Island, which is in the Eastern District of New York. It therefore found that the Southern District was not the proper venue and transferred the case rather than dismissing it.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the transfer, closed the case in the Southern District, and warned Keita that future cases filed there in an improper venue could require court permission before filing. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Keita v. Nike Corporate Office · No. 1:23-cv-03248
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 21, 2023
Background
Mohammed Keita, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Nike Corporate Office. He invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction and alleged a “Violation of Federal Truth in Billing Disclosures Act, Fraud, Manipulation and Deceptive Billing Practices under Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Law.” Keita alleged that Nike was located in Beaverton, Oregon and that the events giving rise to his claims occurred online at his home in Staten Island, New York.
Venue Analysis
The court explained that federal law generally allows a civil case to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court found that Staten Island is in the Eastern District of New York and that the alleged events occurred there. It concluded that the Eastern District appeared to be a proper venue and that nothing in the complaint suggested 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 filed. The court chose transfer and directed the Clerk of Court to send the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Litigation History and Warning
The court stated that Keita had filed eight other actions in the Southern District during the preceding months and that all had been transferred to the Eastern District. It also noted that he had been described as a “serial litigator” in the Eastern District. Based on this history, the court found that Keita was or should have been aware that the Southern District was not a proper venue. The court warned that further improper filings could result in an order barring him from filing new actions in the Southern District without first obtaining permission.
Disposition
The court ordered the transfer to the Eastern District of New York and closed the action in the Southern District. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Keita could proceed without prepaying fees, and no summons would issue from the Southern District. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Keita’s allegations against Nike.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.