Chavez v. American Express

Background

Juan Pablo Chavez filed this action without a lawyer against American Express High Yield Savings, Cash App, the U.S. Social Security Administration, the State of California, John Does 1-72, Jane Does 1-72, and Doe #73. The opinion says Chavez alleged that “John/Jane Does 1-9” discriminated against him in Los Angeles, California. He alleged that, from February 1, 2022, through the present, those unidentified defendants used racial slurs and asked inappropriate questions about his mental health. The court noted that it was unclear whether all defendants listed in the complaint were involved in the alleged discrimination.

Venue Analysis

Venue rules determine the federal court location where a civil action may be filed. The court explained that a case may generally be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. Chavez did not state where the unidentified defendants lived. But he alleged that the events occurred at an address in Los Angeles.

Because the alleged events occurred in Los Angeles, the court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong venue when transfer serves the interests of justice. The court determined that the proper venue was the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the clerk to transfer the action to the Central District of California, Western Division. The court did not decide the merits of Chavez’s discrimination allegations. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Chavez could proceed without prepaying filing fees, and no summons would issue from the Southern District of New York. The order closed the New York case.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion notes that Chavez had filed an identical complaint previously, which had also been transferred to the Central District of California; that earlier complaint was later dismissed without prejudice because he did not submit a completed and intelligible request to proceed without paying filing fees.