Thomas v. Thomas, 2:25-cv-15881

Plaintiff, pro se, resides in Newark, New Jersey, and sues two attorneys concerning the sale of her Newark home.
Plaintiff seeks preliminary injunctive relief to stop the house sale.
Defendants are Cusaj D. Thomas, an attorney in Massachusetts, and Evans C. Anyanwu, who works in Newark, NJ.
The court concludes venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) based on where defendants reside and where events occurred.
This court transfers the action to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); summons will not issue here and the case is closed here.
Because Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, the transfer is to be effected immediately and the transferee court will adjudicate the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is venue proper in SDNY under §1391?	Thomas argues the action should proceed in SDNY since her home is in NJ and defendants' activities affect NJ property.	Defendants contend not all defendants reside in SDNY and events occurred outside SDNY, so venue is improper.	Venue improper; transfer appropriate.
Should the case be transferred under §1406(a) to the District of New Jersey?	Plaintiff does not prevail on forum choice; seeks to halt sale of property in NJ.	Transfer to District of New Jersey is proper because NJ is the location of the subject property and events.	Transfers to District of New Jersey granted.
Does the transfer affect Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief?	Court should resolve or maintain status on injunctive relief here.	Transfer to transferee court will handle the motion; this court will not decide it.	Decision on injunctive relief left to transferee court.

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1962) (appeal in forma pauperis not routinely allowed; good-faith standard for appeals)