David Aranovsky v. Ralph J. Porzio, et al.

Aranovsky · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · February 25, 2026 · No. 1:26-cv-1181-GHW

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the transfer of this civil action to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court concluded that the convenience of the witnesses and parties, the location of relevant evidence, and the locus of operative facts favored transfer, and it denied in forma pauperis status for any appeal.

Holdings

  1. A district court may transfer a civil action on its own initiative under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) when the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice favor another district in which the action might have been brought.
  2. Any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, so in forma pauperis status is denied for purposes of an appeal.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the action should be transferred sua sponte from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
  2. Whether an appeal from the transfer order would be taken in good faith for purposes of in forma pauperis status.

Disposition

remanded

Cases Cited (5)

  • D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Bank of Am., N.A. v. Wilmington Trust FSB, 943 F. Supp. 2d 417, 426-27 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)(followed)
  • Cento v. Pearl Arts & Craft Supply Inc., No. 03-CV-2424, 2003 WL 1960595, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2003)(followed)
  • Keitv. N.Y. City, 882 F. Supp. 2d 412, 459-60 (.D.N.Y. 2011)(followed)
  • Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…