Gu v. U.S. Department of Education
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-06142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gu v. U.S. Department of Education, Judge Swain transferred the loan-forgiveness lawsuit to New York’s Eastern District because venue was improper.
De Min Gu’s lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education and MOHELA was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York.
What happened
In Gu v. U.S. Department of Education, De Min Gu, representing herself, sued the U.S. Department of Education and MOHELA over an alleged failure to process and grant her request for public-service loan forgiveness. The court treated her claims as seeking an order requiring government action and relief under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court found that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue. Gu lived in Queens County, which is in the Eastern District of New York, and she alleged that the relevant events occurred at an office in Missouri. The court therefore determined that both the Eastern District of New York and the Eastern District of Missouri were proper venues.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the interest of justice. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York, directed that no summons issue there, and denied Gu permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Gu v. U.S. Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-06142
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 13, 2024
Background
De Min Gu, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the U.S. Department of Education and MOHELA. She sought an order concerning the defendants’ alleged failure to process and grant her request for public-service loan forgiveness. The court understood the complaint as seeking mandamus relief—an order requiring a government official or agency to perform a required duty—under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, along with additional or alternative relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law governing certain agency actions.
Venue analysis
The court considered where the action could properly be filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Gu resided in Queens County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. She did not sue any individuals, did not raise claims involving real property, and alleged that the events underlying her claims occurred at a defendant’s office in Chesterfield, Missouri, in the Eastern District of Missouri. She did not allege that any relevant events occurred in the Southern District of New York.
The court therefore concluded that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue, while the Eastern District of New York and the Eastern District of Missouri were proper venues. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong venue when doing so serves the interests of justice.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order stated that a summons would not issue from the Southern District of New York and that the action was closed in that court. The court did not decide whether Gu was entitled to public-service loan forgiveness or other requested relief.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Gu permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.