Kulisz v. Raga
1:25-cv-06821
S.D.N.Y.Aug 22, 2025Background
- Kulisz and Kenan sue New York Assemblyman Steven Raga in pro se action alleging constitutional rights violations.
- Venue analysis shows defendant resides in Queens, outside the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
- Plaintiffs allege events occurred in Queens (World Fair/Queens) and Manhattan, but key conduct centers on Queens interactions with Raga.
- Court considers whether venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 is proper in SDNY or transfer is appropriate.
- Court determines venue proper in SDNY's consideration of § 1391(b)(2) (events in Queens) and transfers the case to the EDNY under § 1404(a).
- Clerk is directed to transfer; appeal in forma pauperis is denied as not taken in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue proper in SDNY under §1391(b)(1)? | Kulisz and Kenan reside in SDNY. | Raga resides in Queens, outside SDNY. | No; venue not proper under §1391(b)(1) because defendant resides outside SDNY. |
| Transfer under §1404(a) appropriate? | Strain of factors favors SDNY; convenience/operational ties. | EDNY is more convenient; events occurred in Queens. | Yes; transfer to EDNY appropriate under §1404(a). |
| Impact of forum choice on transfer legitimacy? | Plaintiffs chose SDNY; still transferable for convenience. | Transfer consistent with convenience and locus of operative facts. | Courts may transfer notwithstanding plaintiff’s forum choice; totality favors transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (district courts have broad discretion under §1404(a))
- NY Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (similar factors for transfer analysis; weight to plaintiff’s forum choice limited)
- Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp., 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (deference to plaintiff’s forum choice depends on circumstances)