Jay Lewis Farrow V John Does 1 20

Court Listener

Automated Summary

Key Facts

Plaintiff Jay Lewis Farrow, a Florida resident and suspended attorney, filed a lawsuit against 20 John Does alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, RICO Act, and related statutes. The plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and motion to seal. The Court denied these motions and questioned venue. The plaintiff failed to establish venue because most allegations related to Florida proceedings and practice. The Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for improper venue, directing the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

Issues

  • Whether the plaintiff's membership in the New York bar and representation of clients in Putnam County establishes sufficient venue connection to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)
  • Whether the Eastern District of New York has proper venue for this case, given that the plaintiff is a Florida resident and most allegations relate to Florida bar disciplinary proceedings and Florida law practice
  • Whether the plaintiff's reliance on expert findings from Microsoft Corp. v. Does 1-2, No. 23-CV-2447, 2023 WL 11984986 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2023) adequately establishes venue given the factual and legal distinctions between the cases

Holdings

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for improper venue, finding that venue is almost certainly not proper in the Eastern District of New York because the plaintiff is a Florida resident and most allegations relate to his Florida bar disciplinary proceeding and law practice in Florida. The Court found insufficient connection to the District to establish proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Remedies

  • The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as the motion to seal the case. The Court also questioned whether venue is proper in this District and ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to why venue is proper and why the case should not be dismissed or transferred to a federal district court in Florida.
  • The complaint is dismissed without prejudice for improper venue. The Court concluded that venue is almost certainly not proper in this District because the plaintiff is a Florida resident and almost all allegations relate to his Florida bar disciplinary proceeding and law practice in Florida. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.

Legal Principles

Venue determination under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) requires that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the district. The Second Circuit has cautioned that for venue to be proper, significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff's claim must have occurred in the district in question. When venue is improper, the Court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 to either dismiss the case or transfer it to a proper venue.

Precedent Name

  • Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner
  • Cooney v. Barry Sch. of L.
  • Fedele v. Harris
  • Microsoft Corp. v. Does 1-2

Cited Statute

  • All-Writs Act
  • Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) - Venue
  • 28 U.S.C. § 1406 - Venue Transfer
  • Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
  • Electronic Communications Privacy Act
  • Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

Judge Name

Judge Ann M. Donnelly

Passage Text

  • Under 28 U.S. Code § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in a district 'in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.' The Second Circuit has cautioned that 'for venue to be proper, significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff's claim must have occurred in the district in question.' The plaintiff's filings make clear that almost all of the events giving rise to his claims occurred in Florida, not this District.
  • The Court rejected the plaintiff's argument based on Microsoft Corp. v. Does, stating 'merely citing an expert's conclusions in an entirely different case is not sufficient to show that the defendants in this case operate in this District, let alone the state of New York.' The Court found the Microsoft case 'does not arise out of the same events as Microsoft Corp., and there are distinct questions of fact and law in each case.' Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for improper venue.
  • The Court concluded that 'venue is almost certainly not proper in this District' because 'the plaintiff is a Florida resident, and almost all of his allegations relate to his Florida bar disciplinary proceeding and his law practice in Florida.' The plaintiff's claim that he has 'represented Clients residing in Putnam County,' which is not in this District, does not establish venue.