Gravel v. Hearst Television, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-04527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gravel v. Hearst Television, Inc., Judge Swain transferred the case to Vermont because venue was improper in New York.
Eric M. Gravel and the defendants named in the action. The case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of Vermont, and Gravel cannot represent other people while appearing without a lawyer.
What happened
In Gravel v. Hearst Television, Inc., Eric M. Gravel sued Hearst Television, Inc., and Vermont cities and a town, alleging harassment, false arrest, libel, assault, battery, and fraud.
Gravel filed the case in the Southern District of New York and said venue was proper because Hearst Television is headquartered in New York City. The court noted that Gravel lives in Vermont and that the alleged events appeared to have occurred there. The court also stated that Gravel, who represented himself, could not represent other people in the case.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that venue was improper in New York and transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. The court directed that summonses not issue from New York, closed the case there, and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Gravel v. Hearst Television, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04527
- Laura Swain
- May 31, 2023
Background
Eric M. Gravel filed this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Hearst Television, Inc.; the City of Winooski, Vermont; the Town of Colchester, Vermont; and the City of Burlington, Vermont, including their police departments and elected officials. He alleged that the defendants had harassed, falsely arrested, libeled, assaulted and battered, and defrauded him.
The opinion states that Gravel represented himself. The court explained that a person who is not a licensed attorney cannot appear on behalf of another person, so Gravel could not represent anyone else in the action.
Venue analysis
Federal law allows a civil action to be filed in certain districts, including a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. Gravel alleged that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because Hearst Television is headquartered in New York City. He did not plead the residence of any defendant.
The court noted that Gravel resides in Vermont, that the other defendants are located in Vermont, and that the alleged events appeared to have occurred in Vermont. Based on the complaint, the court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York under the cited venue provisions.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong venue when transfer is in the interest of justice. The court concluded that the claims arose in Vermont and that the case could have been brought in the District of Vermont. It therefore directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont.
The court stated that summonses would not issue from the Southern District of New York and that the order closed the case there. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The opinion does not decide whether Gravel's allegations are legally or factually valid.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.