Metellus v. Jolly
- Andrew Carter
- 1:23-cv-06712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Metellus v. Jolly, Judge Carter transferred the trademark case to the Eastern District of New York because Queens County was the more convenient venue.
Sam Albert Metellus’s action was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The Eastern District court will decide the pending preliminary-injunction motion; the transfer order did not resolve the trademark claims.
What happened
Metellus v. Jolly is a pro se lawsuit by Sam Albert Metellus claiming trademark infringement and seeking money damages, court orders, and a declaration of his rights. The claims arose from what appeared to be child-support proceedings in Queens County Family Court against Anne-Marie Jolly, Gilbert Taylor, and Katerina Contaratos.
Metellus also filed a motion that the court understood as seeking a preliminary injunction. The court said it was unclear whether the Southern District of New York was a proper venue because Metellus had not identified where all defendants lived. But Queens County was a proper venue in the Eastern District of New York because the events allegedly occurred there, and the defendants, documents, and witnesses appeared likely to be there.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York under the federal convenience-transfer statute and closed the action in the Southern District. The Eastern District court must decide Metellus’s pending motion. Judge Carter also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Metellus v. Jolly · No. 1:23-cv-06712
- Andrew Carter
- Aug. 8, 2023
Background
Sam Albert Metellus filed this pro se action asserting trademark-infringement claims. He sought damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. The claims arose from what appeared to be child-support proceedings in the New York Family Court, Queens County. He sued Anne-Marie Jolly, whom he described as the Administrative Judge of the Queens County Family Court; Gilbert Taylor, whom he described as the Supervising Judge; and Katerina Contaratos, whom he described as a Support Magistrate.
Metellus also filed a “Special Appearance Notice of Motion for Leave to Request to File an Emergency Motion.” The court understood that filing to be a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is a request for a court order issued before the case is resolved. The opinion states that Metellus paid the filing fees.
Venue analysis
The court explained that a trademark-infringement action may generally be filed where all defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. Because Metellus did not specify where all defendants resided, the court said it was unclear whether the Southern District of New York was a proper venue on the residence-based ground.
The court nevertheless assumed that the defendants resided in New York and that at least one resided in the Southern District. It determined that the Eastern District of New York was also clearly a proper venue because Queens County lies within that district and Metellus alleged that the events giving rise to his claims occurred there.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a case to another federal district where it could have been filed when doing so would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court considered the alleged location of the events and the apparent locations of the defendants, relevant documents, and witnesses. It concluded that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be the more convenient forum.
Ruling
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It directed the Clerk of Court to carry out the transfer and stated that the action was closed in the Southern District of New York. The opinion did not decide whether Metellus’s pending preliminary-injunction motion should be granted; it stated that the transferee court would decide that question.
The court also certified that any appeal from the transfer order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion additionally states that electronic access to the complaint had been restricted to case participants because the complaint appeared to reveal the full name of a minor child.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.