Filsoof v. Wheelock Street Capital, LLC
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:22-cv-09359
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Filsoof v. Wheelock Street Capital, Judge Buchwald granted defendants’ motion transferring the negligence case to Northern Georgia.
Teresa Rene Filsoof’s negligence case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Georgia; the ruling concerned venue and did not resolve the negligence allegations.
What happened
In Filsoof v. Wheelock Street Capital, Teresa Rene Filsoof alleged that she was injured at a hotel and restaurant in Braselton, Georgia, operated by the defendants. She filed the negligence case in the Southern District of New York, and the defendants asked to move it to the Northern District of Georgia.
The court ruled that New York was not a proper venue. The defendants were not subject to personal jurisdiction there, and the events underlying the injury—including the alleged failure to maintain the doorway—occurred in Georgia. The court also rejected arguments based on medical treatment, witnesses, and an alleged New York residence.
Judge Buchwald granted the defendants’ motion under the federal venue-transfer statute and ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The court did not decide whether the defendants were negligent.
The detailed version
- Filsoof v. Wheelock Street Capital, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-09359
- Naomi Buchwald
- Nov. 30, 2023
Background
Teresa Rene Filsoof brought a negligence action against Wheelock Street Capital, LLC and WS CE Resort Owner, LLC. She alleged that on October 4, 2022, a metal object fell on her wrist while she was walking through a doorway at the Chateau Elan, a hotel and restaurant in Braselton, Georgia. She claimed the defendants were responsible because they negligently maintained the doorway.
Filsoof is a citizen and domiciliary of Georgia and alleged that she also maintained a residence in New York. The defendants are limited liability companies incorporated in Delaware with principal places of business in Connecticut. The defendants moved to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Georgia under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a).
Venue and Personal Jurisdiction
The court held that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), venue can be proper where a defendant resides. For an entity, residence depends on whether the entity is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district for the particular case.
The court rejected Filsoof’s argument that the defendants were subject to general personal jurisdiction in New York. The defendants were incorporated in Delaware and had their principal places of business in Connecticut. The court found that allegations about Wheelock’s New York-based principals, employees, finance department, and receipt of documents did not show the exceptional relationship with New York required for general jurisdiction.
The court also rejected specific personal jurisdiction under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 302(a)(3). The injury’s relevant original event occurred in Georgia, where the metal object allegedly struck Filsoof. Her medical treatment or continuing pain in New York did not change the location of the injury for jurisdictional purposes.
The court separately held that venue was not proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), which permits venue where a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying the claim occurred. The alleged injury and alleged failure to maintain the doorway occurred at the Chateau Elan in Georgia. The court found speculative Filsoof’s assertion that maintenance occurred from New York, and it ruled that the location of damages witnesses, her New York residence, and her medical treatment in New York did not establish venue there.
Disposition
Because venue was improper in New York and proper in the Northern District of Georgia, the court exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and granted the defendants’ motion to transfer the case to that district. The court did not decide whether transfer was also appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions pending at ECF Nos. 30, 35, and 41.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.