Keita v. American Security Insurance Company
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-07725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Keita v. American Security Insurance Company, Judge Swain transferred the insurance case to the Eastern District of New York for convenience.
Mohammed Keita and his two minor children, as listed plaintiffs, must pursue the action in the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York. American Security Insurance Company and Pilot Catastrophe Service, Inc. are the named defendants. The order did not resolve the insurance claims.
What happened
Mohammed Keita brought Keita v. American Security Insurance Company without a lawyer, listing himself and his two minor children as plaintiffs. The claims concern insurance coverage for real property in Staten Island, New York.
The court concluded that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be a proper and more convenient venue because the property and underlying events were in Richmond County. It ordered the case transferred there rather than deciding the insurance claims.
Judge Swain directed the clerk to transfer the action, said the case was closed in the Southern District of New York, and ruled that summonses would not issue from that court. She also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Keita v. American Security Insurance Company · No. 1:23-cv-07725
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 30, 2023
Background
Mohammed Keita brought this action without a lawyer and listed himself and his two minor children as plaintiffs. The complaint asserts claims concerning insurance coverage for real property in Staten Island, New York. The defendants are American Security Insurance Company, also known as Assurant, Inc., and Pilot Catastrophe Service, Inc.
The court noted that filings containing a minor’s name must be redacted. Because the pleadings included the children’s full names, the court restricted access to those pleadings and to the application to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Venue Analysis
The court considered the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. It stated that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York under the provision allowing suit where a substantial part of the events occurred or where a substantial part of the property is located, because the complaint did not suggest that the relevant events occurred in that district.
The court also found it unclear whether venue was proper under the provision concerning where defendants reside. Pilot Catastrophe Service, Inc., was identified as an Alabama corporation, and the court said it was unclear whether Pilot was subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District for this claim.
The property is in Staten Island, which is in Richmond County and the Eastern District of New York. The court therefore concluded that the Eastern District appeared to be a proper venue under Section 1391(b)(2).
Transfer Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer an action to another district where it could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. The court considered the circumstances of this case, including that the underlying events occurred in Richmond County, where Keita resides, and that the property involved in the suit is located there.
The court determined that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be a more convenient forum and ordered the action transferred there. This was a venue and convenience ruling; the court did not decide whether the insurance claims were legally or factually valid.
Disposition
The clerk was directed to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order states that the action was closed in the Southern District of New York and that summonses would not issue from that court. The court left any decision about whether Keita could continue without prepaying fees to the transferee court. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.