Marshall v. Kaplus
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-03257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marshall v. Kaplus, Judge Schofield transferred the case to New Jersey because venue was improper in New York.
Rosalin Denise Marshall and Tijuana Rene Johnson, who represented themselves, are affected because their case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey. Howard L. Kaplus is also affected as the defendant. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
In Marshall v. Kaplus, Rosalin Denise Marshall and Tijuana Rene Johnson, representing themselves, sued Howard L. Kaplus over claims involving property from Marshall’s deceased mother’s estate. They sought an amount reflecting the property’s market price and an additional $400,000 in damages.
The court ruled that the case belonged in New Jersey. The complaint said Kaplus lived in South Orange, New Jersey, the relevant events occurred there, and the property was there, making New Jersey a proper federal venue and New York an improper one.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under the federal venue law. The New York court closed the case there, directed that no summons issue from that court, and denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without paying filing fees because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Marshall v. Kaplus · No. 1:23-cv-03257
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 24, 2023
Background
Rosalin Denise Marshall and Tijuana Rene Johnson filed this action without lawyers against Howard L. Kaplus, an attorney. The plaintiffs sought an amount reflecting the market price of the real property at issue and an additional $400,000 in damages. The complaint appeared to concern the conveyance of the estate of Marshall’s deceased mother. The opinion states that Marshall was the only plaintiff who signed the complaint.
Venue analysis
Federal law generally permits a civil action to be filed where the defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or where a substantial part of the property involved in the action is located. The complaint alleged that Kaplus, the sole defendant, resided in South Orange, New Jersey. It also alleged that the events underlying the claims occurred in New Jersey and that the property, including real property from the estate, was located there.
The court therefore concluded that the District of New Jersey was a proper venue under both provisions concerning the defendant’s residence and the location of the events or property. It concluded that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in the wrong venue, a court may dismiss it or, when justice requires, transfer it to a district where it could have been filed. Judge Lorna G. Schofield transferred this action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in the interest of justice.
The court directed the clerk to transfer the action, stated that a summons would not issue from the Southern District of New York, and closed the action in that court. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order does not decide the underlying property-related claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.