Wadud v. Americollect
1:19-cv-06501
| E.D.N.Y | May 4, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Maiya Wadud filed suit in Superior Court of New Jersey (Essex County) on Oct. 18, 2019, disputing a $3,000 debt and asserting FCRA and FDCPA claims.
- Defendant Americollect removed the case to the Eastern District of New York on Nov. 18, 2019.
- The court raised concerns about proper removal; defendant explained removal to EDNY was a clerical error and moved to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
- The plaintiff consents to transfer; neither party appears to reside in EDNY and the underlying events did not occur in this district.
- The Court found removal to EDNY was improper venue-wise but not jurisdictionally defective and that transfer to the District of New Jersey is in the interest of justice.
- The Court ordered transfer to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark Vicinage), waived the Local Rule 83.1 stay, and denied in forma pauperis status for any appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for removed action (venue/removal) | Wadud filed in NJ state court and consents to transfer | Removal to EDNY was clerical error; proper venue is District of New Jersey; move to transfer under § 1406(a) | Transfer to District of New Jersey ordered in interest of justice |
| In forma pauperis status for appeal | No specific argument presented | No specific argument presented | Court certified any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP for appeal under § 1915(a)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mortensen v. Wheel Horse Prods., Inc., 772 F. Supp. 85 (N.D.N.Y. 1991) (wrong-district removal is analogous to improper venue and may be remedied by transfer)
- Coppedge v. United States, 269 U.S. 438 (1962) (standard for certifying appeal not taken in good faith for IFP purposes)