The opinion
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC#: □□
DATE FILED: 1/6/2022
GENNADTIY N. ULANOV,
Plaintiff,
1:21-CV-11138 (ALC)
-against-
TRANSFER ORDER
NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS,
Defendant.
ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Gennadiy N. Ulanov, of Brooklyn, New York, appears pro se. He states that he
invokes diversity jurisdiction, asserts that his “electoral rights” have been violated (ECF No. | at
2), and sues the New York State Board of Elections for money damages. Plaintiff has paid the
fees to bring this action. For the following reasons, the Court transfers this action to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
DISCUSSION
Under the general venue provision, a federal civil action may be brought in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district 1s located; (2) a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred . .. ; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be
brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is
subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the
person is domiciled, and any other entity with the capacity to sue and be sued, if a defendant,
resides “in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal
Jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.” § 1391(c)(1), (2).
Plaintiff alleges that on November 4, 2020, he was at a polling place (a school) located in
Brooklyn, New York, where he noticed an irregularity in the collection of votes. He sues the New
York State Board of Elections, a New York State agency, which resides throughout the State of
New York. Accordingly, it appears that any federal district court within the State of New York is
a proper venue for this action under § 1391(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s allegations, however, seem to imply legal violations on the part of the New
York City Board of Elections, a New York City agency, which resides both within this judicial
district and in the Eastern District of New York.1 Because Plaintiff alleges that the events and
occurrences giving rise to his claims took place in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for this action
under § 1391(b)(2).
While the Southern District of New York is a proper venue for this action, the Court may
nonetheless transfer an action to another district “where [the action] might have been brought”
“[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a). “District courts have broad discretion in making determinations of convenience under
Section 1404(a) and notions of convenience and fairness are considered on a case-by-case basis.”
D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, courts may transfer
cases on their own initiative. See Cento v. Pearl Arts & Craft Supply Inc., No. 03-CV-2424, 2003
WL 1960595, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2003) (“Courts have an independent institutional concern
to see to it that the burdens of litigation that is unrelated to the forum that a party chooses are not
imposed unreasonably on jurors and judges who have enough to do in determining cases that are
1 This judicial district, the Southern District of New York, is comprised of the following
New York State counties: (1) New York (Borough of Manhattan), (2) Bronx (Borough of the
Bronx), (3) Westchester, (4) Dutchess, (5) Rockland, (6) Orange, (7) Putnam, and (8) Sullivan.
28 U.S.C. § 112(b). The Eastern District of New York is comprised of the following New York
State counties: (1) Kings (Borough of Brooklyn), (2) Queens (Borough of Queens),
(3) Richmond (Borough of Staten Island), (4) Nassau, and (5) Suffolk. 28 U.S.C. § 112(c).
appropriately before them. The power of district courts to transfer cases under Section 1404(a)
sua sponte therefore is well established.”); see also Lead Indus. Ass’n. Inc. v. OSHA., 610 F.2d
70, 79 n.17 (2d Cir. 1979) (noting that “broad language of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) would seem to
permit a court to order transfer sua sponte”).
In determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider the following factors:
(1) the convenience of witnesses, (2) the convenience of the parties, (3) the locus of operative
facts, (4) the availability of process to compel the attendance of the unwilling witnesses, (5) the
location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof, (6) the relative
means of the parties, (7) the forum’s familiarity with the governing law, (8) the weight accorded
to the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (9) trial efficiency, and (10) the interest of justice, based on the
totality of circumstances. Keitt v. N.Y. City, 882 F.Supp.2d 412, 458–59 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also
N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (setting
forth similar factors).
Under Section 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate for this action because (i) the
underlying events occurred in Brooklyn, in the Eastern District of New York, and (ii) relevant
documents and witnesses, including Plaintiff himself, are likely located in that judicial district.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that it is in the interest of justice
to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A summons shall
not issue from this Court. This Order closes this action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The Court certifies, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would
not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
Plaintiff has consented to electronic service of court documents. See ECF No. 2.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2022 (Ayrdbe 7 (de
New York, New York : Q—-~
ANDREW CARTER, JR.”
United States District Judge