Duncan v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: June 28, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-04728
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DERRECK KESHAUN DUNCAN, Plaintiff, 24-CV-4728 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. DISCUSSION Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 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. For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is domiciled, and an “entity with the capacity to sue and be sued” resides in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1), (2). Plaintiff, a resident of South Carolina, filed this complaint against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), a federal agency based in Washington, D.C. Robinson v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 16-CV-2183, 2016 WL 8222546, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2016) (identifying the CFPB as a federal agency). Plaintiff alleges that the events that are the bases for his claims occurred within the State of South Carolina. (ECF 1, at 4.) Even if the Court assumes that venue is proper here under Section 1391(b)(1), because the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in South Carolina, venue would also be proper under

Section 1391(b)(2) in the District of South Carolina. 28 U.S.C. § 121. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), even if a case is filed in a jurisdiction where venue is proper, a court may transfer the case to any other district where it might have been brought “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider the following ten 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 the 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 Section 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The underlying events occurred in South Carolina, where Plaintiff resides. It is reasonable to expect that all relevant documents and witnesses also would be in South Carolina. The District of South Carolina appears to be a more convenient forum for this action. Accordingly, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006) (“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.”).

CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed further without prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. 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: June 28, 2024 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge