Coutain v. Keystone Property Management, Inc.
1:25-cv-23045
| S.D. Fla. | Jun 26, 2025Background
- Allison Cindy Coutain, proceeding pro se, filed a civil suit against 32 defendants, including entities and individuals, alleging violations of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and employment discrimination under Title VII.
- The complaint referenced defendants with addresses predominantly in Miami Beach, Florida, but also cited others located across several states including New York, Pennsylvania, California, Arizona, and Washington.
- Coutain alleged that the unlawful employment practices primarily occurred in Miami Beach, Florida.
- The action was filed in the Southern District of New York, but the facts suggested the core conduct occurred in the Southern District of Florida.
- The court analyzed venue under both Title VII's specific provision (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3)) and the general federal venue statute (28 U.S.C. § 1391), finding venue improper in the Southern District of New York.
- The court transferred the action to the Southern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of parties and in the interest of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue under Title VII and § 1983 | Alleged events support NY venue; defendants have connections to NY and other states | Not specifically stated; connections primarily in Florida | Venue is proper in Southern District of Florida, not New York |
| Transfer for Convenience | Plaintiff's choice of forum (NY) should be respected | Not specifically stated/none | Convenience, justice favor transfer to Florida |
| Sufficiency of Plaintiff's Venue Allegations | Substantial events in NY or interstate conduct occurred | Not specifically stated/none | No material acts identified in NY; Florida is proper venue |
| Issuance of Summons or Ruling on Protective Orders | N/A | N/A | To be decided by transferee court in Florida |
Key Cases Cited
- D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (discusses court's broad discretion in § 1404(a) transfer cases)
- N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (sets forth factors for determining the appropriateness of a venue transfer under § 1404(a))
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (addresses criteria for granting in forma pauperis status on appeal)