Sharita Patterson v. Daily Voice Headquarters; Jerry DeMarco Senior Editor

• Court: District Court, D. Connecticut
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01925
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SHARITA PATTERSON, Plaintiff, 25-CV-1440 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER DAILY VOICE HEADQUARTERS; JERRY DEMARCO SENIOR EDITOR, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who resides in New Jersey, brings this pro se action under the Court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, asserting claims of defamation, slander, harassment, stalking, and invasion of privacy. Named as Defendants are the Daily Voice Headquarters, which is “headquartered” in Norwalk, Connecticut and “also located in New Jersey,” and a senior reporter, Jerry DeMarco. (ECF 1.) Plaintiff does not allege the residence of DeMarco. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. 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 does not allege where the events giving rise to her claims occurred. It is therefore unclear where venue would be proper under Section 1391(b)(2). Plaintiff alleges that

the Daily Voice is headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut. It is not clear where DeMarco resides. Venue for Plaintiff’s claims is therefore proper under Section 1391(b)(1) in the District of Connecticut. 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). Although Plaintiff does not allege where the underlying events occurred, she does allege that one Defendant resides in Connecticut. Plaintiff does not reside in this District, and nothing in the complaint suggests any connection to this District.1 The District of Connecticut 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 Connecticut. 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 Connecticut. 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. The Court waives Local Civil Rule 83.1, which requires a seven-day delay before the Clerk of Court may transfer a case. This order closes this case in this court. 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: November 18, 2025 New York, New York

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

1 This judicial District, the Southern District of New York, is comprised of the following New York State counties: (1) New York (New York City Borough of Manhattan); (2) Bronx (New York City Borough of the Bronx); (3) Westchester; (4) Dutchess; (5) Rockland; (6) Orange; (7) Putnam; and (8) Sullivan. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(b).