Jansen v. The City of New York
1:23-cv-07792-LTS
S.D.N.Y.Sep 7, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Heather Jansen, proceeding pro se from New Jersey, sued the City of New York, the NYC Department of Education (DOE), Chancellor David C. Banks (official capacity), and Superintendent Marion Wilson (official capacity) seeking reinstatement as Principal of P.S. 46 (Albert V. Maniscalco Elementary), Staten Island.
- Claims alleged discrimination and possibly retaliation arising from her removal as principal; pleading invokes Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the FMLA, and New York State and City human rights laws.
- Plaintiff filed in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and sought immediate injunctive relief (TRO/PI).
- The events underlying the complaint occurred on Staten Island (Richmond County), which lies in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY); DOE offices and Plaintiff’s supervisor are located in EDNY.
- The court analyzed venue under Title VII’s venue provision and 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, declined to issue summonses, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith for IFP-appeal purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue for Title VII claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e‑5(f)(3) | SDNY is a proper forum where she filed; claims arise in New York State | (Not separately argued) — court noted alleged conduct occurred in Staten Island (EDNY) | SDNY is a proper venue under the statute, but EDNY is more convenient and transfer is appropriate |
| Proper venue for § 1983, FMLA, and state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 | Filing in SDNY acceptable | Residence of individual defendants (Banks, Wilson) not alleged; operative events occurred in EDNY | Because a substantial part of events occurred in Richmond County, EDNY is a proper venue under § 1391(b)(2) |
| Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is warranted | Plaintiff chose SDNY (forum choice) | EDNY is more convenient for parties, witnesses, documents; locus of operative facts is EDNY | Transfer to EDNY granted for convenience and in interest of justice (considering § 1404(a) factors) |
| Interim relief, issuance of summonses, and IFP appeal certification | Plaintiff sought TRO/PI and permission to proceed without prepayment of fees | Court reserved decisions on injunctive relief and fee status to transferee court | Summonses will not issue here; transferee court to decide injunctive relief and IFP status; appeal not in good faith (IFP appeal denied) |
Key Cases Cited
- Keitt v. N.Y. City, 882 F. Supp. 2d 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (sets out § 1404(a) transfer factors)
- N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (discusses transfer-factor analysis under § 1404(a))
- D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (affirms district courts’ broad discretion in § 1404(a) determinations)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1962) (good‑faith standard for in forma pauperis appeals)