The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CAROL BROWN,
Plaintiff,
21-CV-8816 (LTS)
-against-
TRANSFER ORDER
MADISON COURT APARTMENT,
Defendant.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff brings this pro se action under the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. For the
following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.
DISCUSSION
Under the general venue provision, a 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 is 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1). A defendant corporation generally 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 . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). Where a state has more than one judicial
district, a defendant corporation generally “shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State
within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district
were a separate State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d).1
Plaintiff filed this complaint regarding events occurring in Shamokin, Pennsylvania,
located in Northumberland County. Plaintiff lists an address for Defendant in Shamokin,
Pennsylvania. Because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant resides in this District or that a
substantial part of the events or omissions underlying her claim arose in this District, venue does
not appear to be proper in this District under § 1391(b)(1) or (2).
Even if venue were proper here, however, the Court may transfer claims “[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 Bank of Am., N.A. v. Wilmington Trust FSB, 943 F. Supp. 2d 417,
426-427 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“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
appropriately before them. The power of district courts to transfer cases under Section 1404(a)
sua sponte therefore is well established.” (quoting Cento v. Pearl Arts & Craft Supply Inc., No.
03-CV-2424, 2003 WL 1960595, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2003))); see also Lead Indus. Ass’n.
Inc. v. OSHA., 610 F.2d 70, 79 (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”).
1 In a state with multiple districts, if there is no such district, “the corporation shall be
deemed to reside in the district within which it has the most significant contacts.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(d).
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, 459-60 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see
also N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102, 112 (2d Cir. 2010)
(setting forth similar factors). A plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded less deference where
plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum and the operative events did not occur there. See
Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 2001).
Under § 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The underlying events
occurred in Shamokin, Pennsylvania, where Defendant is located. Shamokin is located in
Northumberland County, which falls within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 118(b). Venue is therefore proper in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b). 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 Middle District of
Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of
this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket.2 A summons shall not issue from this Court.
This order closes this case.
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 is denied for the purpose of an
appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 29, 2021
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge
2 By order dated October 29, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.