Mergenthaler v. Zimbler
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-07015
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Mergenthaler v. Zimbler: Judge Swain transferred the plaintiffs’ case to the Eastern District of New York because venue was improper in the Southern District.
Peter Mergenthaler and Mac Truong, as well as the named defendants; the action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York.
What happened
In Mergenthaler v. Zimbler, Peter Mergenthaler and Mac Truong, who were proceeding without lawyers, alleged that the defendants violated their rights, including by unlawfully converting and fraudulently transferring Mergenthaler’s company shares.
The court ruled that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York because the plaintiffs did not show that the defendants or corporate defendants were located there or that a substantial part of the events occurred there. The court concluded that the claims primarily arose in Suffolk County, which is in the Eastern District of New York.
The court transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York in the interest of justice and closed the case in the Southern District. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Mergenthaler v. Zimbler · No. 1:23-cv-07015
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 8, 2023
Background
Peter Mergenthaler and Mac Truong brought this action without lawyers, alleging that the defendants violated their rights. The opinion states that the plaintiffs alleged James W. Zimbler acted with the other defendants to unlawfully convert and fraudulently transfer Mergenthaler’s shares in a company that Mergenthaler owned and controlled. The defendants included several individuals and corporate entities associated with New York, Texas, California, and Delaware.
Venue analysis
Federal law permits a civil case to be filed in certain districts, including a district where the defendants reside under specified conditions or where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred. The court found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that any individual defendant lived in the Southern District of New York, that any corporate defendant had an office or conducted business there, or that events giving rise to the claims occurred there. The court therefore found that venue was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2).
The court explained that when a case is filed in the wrong venue, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) permits dismissal or transfer to a district where the case could have been brought if transfer serves the interests of justice. The court noted that Zimbler allegedly was primarily responsible for the violations and lived in Suffolk County, and that many corporate defendants controlled by him were also based there. The court understood the claims to have arisen primarily in Suffolk County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. It concluded that venue was proper there.
Ruling
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The clerk was directed to carry out the transfer. The court left the question of whether the plaintiffs could continue without prepaying filing fees to the transferee court, directed that no summons issue from the Southern District, and stated that the case was closed there.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.