Lamparelli v. Manzello

Background

Giacomo Lamparelli brought claims against James Manzello and Matthew Pavich concerning a parody music video called Coincidance. The defendants moved to dismiss the case for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. The court had previously delayed deciding the motions while the parties pursued mediation and settlement efforts.

Venue

The court held that venue in the Southern District of New York was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Both defendants resided in the Eastern District of New York, and all events and omissions giving rise to Lamparelli’s claims occurred there. Lamparelli did not dispute that venue was improper.

Request for Transfer

Lamparelli asked the court to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York rather than dismiss it. The court denied that request. It found Lamparelli’s explanation for initially filing in the Southern District—that one defendant had not disclosed where he lived—to be weak. The court also noted that, after the defendants raised the venue issue in their earlier motions, Lamparelli filed a Second Amended Complaint and continued to assert that venue was proper.

The court recognized that avoiding a statute-of-limitations problem can sometimes support transfer instead of dismissal. But it concluded that dismissal would not affect the timeliness of Lamparelli’s claims: if his timeliness arguments were correct, a newly filed case in the Eastern District would be timely; if they were incorrect, transfer would not preserve the claims.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The court denied Lamparelli’s request to transfer the case, dismissed the case without prejudice, terminated the relevant motions, and directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion did not decide the defendants’ alternative argument that Lamparelli failed to state a claim.