Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 17, 2024

Greene v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-02088
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Greene v. Greyhound Lines, Judge Swain vacated an earlier order and transferred Greene’s action to California because the events occurred there.

Who this affects

Cedric Greene’s action against Greyhound Lines, Inc. was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of California; the court did not decide the underlying claims.

What happened

In Greene v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., Cedric Greene, representing himself, sued over a 2015 bus-ticket incident in Oakland, California. He claimed breach of agreement and negligence and sought $80,000.

The Southern District of New York found that the complaint showed the events occurred in Oakland, which is in the Northern District of California. The court did not decide whether Greene’s claims were valid.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain vacated an April 4, 2024 transfer order and transferred the action to the Northern District of California. The court closed the case in New York and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Greene v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02088
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 17, 2024

Background

Cedric Greene brought this action without a lawyer against Greyhound Lines, Inc. He alleged that, after he was the victim of theft in Oakland, California, on January 10, 2015, Greyhound did not allow him to board an earlier return bus and told him to leave the station until his scheduled return date. Greene asserted claims for breach of agreement and negligence and sought $80,000 in damages.

The opinion states that Greene had filed other suits involving the same or apparently similar facts. The court did not resolve the effect of those earlier proceedings on this action.

Venue Analysis

Federal venue rules generally allow a civil action to be brought where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where the defendant is subject to the court’s authority. The complaint did not provide facts showing that Greyhound resided in the Southern District of New York. It did show that all events underlying Greene’s claims occurred in Oakland. Oakland is in Alameda County, within the Northern District of California.

The court therefore concluded that venue was proper in the Northern District of California and transferred the action there under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a). The court did not decide the merits of Greene’s breach-of-agreement or negligence claims.

Order and Effect

The court vacated the transfer order entered on April 4, 2024, because it had been issued in error, and directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the Northern District of California. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York, stated that a summons would not issue from that court, and left any decision about proceeding without prepaying fees to the transferee court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.