Sesay v. Equifax Information Services LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-06084
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sesay v. Equifax, Judge Engelmayer transferred Fatima Sesay’s Fair Credit Reporting Act action to the Eastern District of New York for venue and convenience.
Fatima Sesay’s Fair Credit Reporting Act action was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York, and the Southern District case was closed. Equifax remained the defendant. The court also denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Sesay v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Fatima Sesay, representing herself, sued Equifax under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. She alleged that the Southern District of New York was a proper place for the case, while also stating that she lived in Brooklyn, in Kings County.
The court found it unclear whether Equifax or the alleged events connected the case sufficiently to the Southern District. It concluded that the Eastern District of New York was also an appropriate venue because Equifax might reside there and significant events appeared to have occurred in Kings County, where relevant witnesses and documents might be located.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York under the federal transfer statute and directed the Clerk to close the Southern District case. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Sesay v. Equifax Information Services LLC · No. 1:23-cv-06084
- Paul Engelmayer
- July 28, 2023
Background
Fatima Sesay brought this action without a lawyer against Equifax Information Services LLC under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, a federal law governing consumer reports. The opinion states that Sesay lives in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, and that she paid the fees required to bring the action.
Sesay alleged that Equifax was a Georgia corporation authorized to do business in New York and that it conducted business and engaged in the conduct at issue in the Southern District of New York. She also alleged that Equifax compiles and maintains consumer files nationwide. The court found these allegations insufficiently specific to determine whether Equifax resided in the Southern District for federal venue purposes. The court likewise found that Sesay provided no other facts supporting her statement that the events occurred in the Southern District.
Venue and Transfer Analysis
Federal law allows a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where the defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court explained that Kings County is within the Eastern District of New York, not the Southern District of New York.
The court stated that, even assuming the Southern District was a proper venue, the Eastern District also appeared to be proper. Equifax might reside in the Eastern District, and at least some of the alleged events appeared to have occurred in Kings County. Under the federal transfer statute, a court may transfer an action to another federal district where it could have been brought when doing so would promote the convenience of the parties and witnesses and serve the interests of justice.
The court determined that transfer was appropriate. It reasoned that the alleged events appeared to have occurred, at least in significant part, in Kings County, making it reasonable to expect that relevant documents and witnesses would be located there. The Eastern District therefore appeared to be a more convenient forum.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and close the Southern District case. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer did not rule in this order on the merits of Sesay’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claims; the order addressed venue and transfer.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.