Hoover v. New Paltz Central School District

S.D. New York

Hoover v. New Paltz Central School District

254 F. Supp. 2d 345, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4861, 2003 WL 1715786

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMarch 28, 2003

Docket02 Civ. 10024(VM)

StatusPublished

This text of 254 F. Supp. 2d 345 (Hoover v. New Paltz Central School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoover v. New Paltz Central School District, 254 F. Supp. 2d 345, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4861, 2003 WL 1715786 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

In reviewing the complaint filed in this action, and discussing the matter with the parties at the conference on March 21, 2003, the Court noted that Plaintiff Azizza Hoover (“Hoover”) asserts that she is a resident of Orange County, New York and that defendant New Paltz Central School District (“New Paltz”) is a New York educational corporation with offices at New Paltz, New York. The complaint indicates that Hoover was employed by New Paltz as a bus driver and, following internal disciplinary proceedings, subsequently dismissed in retaliation for her filing a complaint charging sexual harassment.

It appears from this review that the events giving rise to the underlying action at issue occurred predominantly in Hoover’s place of employment at New Paltz, and that all or most of the material events, documents, persons and potential witnesses related to this action are located in the Northern District of New York. See Ayala-Branch v. Tad Telecom, Inc., 197 F.Supp.2d 13 (S.D.N.Y.2002). Contrary to the assertion in the complaint, New Paltz is not situated in the Southern District of New York, but in the Northern District. The Court informed the parties that under these circumstances, venue for this case lies more properly in the Northern District of New York. At the March 21, 2003 conference, and in its related submission to the Court, New Paltz objected to venue for this action remaining in this District and subsequently informed the Court that it would not agree to proceed with the litigation in White Plains.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to Northern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DECISION AND ORDER

MARRERO, District Judge.

In reviewing the complaint filed in this action, and discussing the matter with the parties at the conference on March 21, 2003, the Court noted that Plaintiff Azizza Hoover (“Hoover”) asserts that she is a resident of Orange County, New York and that defendant New Paltz Central School District (“New Paltz”) is a New York educational corporation with offices at New Paltz, New York. The complaint indicates that Hoover was employed by New Paltz as a bus driver and, following internal disciplinary proceedings, subsequently dismissed in retaliation for her filing a complaint charging sexual harassment.

It appears from this review that the events giving rise to the underlying action at issue occurred predominantly in Hoover’s place of employment at New Paltz, and that all or most of the material events, documents, persons and potential witnesses related to this action are located in the Northern District of New York. See Ayala-Branch v. Tad Telecom, Inc., 197 F.Supp.2d 13 (S.D.N.Y.2002). Contrary to the assertion in the complaint, New Paltz is not situated in the Southern District of New York, but in the Northern District. The Court informed the parties that under these circumstances, venue for this case lies more properly in the Northern District of New York. At the March 21, 2003 conference, and in its related submission to the Court, New Paltz objected to venue for this action remaining in this District and subsequently informed the Court that it would not agree to proceed with the litigation in White Plains.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this case to Northern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 F. Supp. 2d 345, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4861, 2003 WL 1715786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoover-v-new-paltz-central-school-district-nysd-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack