UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CELESTE INEZ SYAS, Plaintiff, 21-CV-0576 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER DANE CALLOWAY,1 Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who resides in Southampton (Suffolk County), New York, filed this pro se action under

and under the Court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction against Dane Calloway. For the following reasons, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. DISCUSSION Under the general venue provision, a civil action may be brought in: (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . ; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

(b). For venue purposes, a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is domiciled.

(c)(1).

1 Although Plaintiff lists Defendant as “Dana Calloway,” a Google search of the parties reveals that Defendant’s name is “Dane Calloway.” See https://www.amazon.com/Dane- Calloway/e/B07T8T552G%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share (last visited July 14, 2021); Dane Calloway Author Profile; https://www.instagram.com/imjustheretomakeyouthink/?hl=en (last visited July 14, 2021). In this transfer order, the Court refers to Defendant as “Dane Calloway.” Plaintiff’s complaint is not the model of clarity. It is therefore unclear where the events giving rise to her claims occurred, but Plaintiff lists her address in Suffolk County, New York and provides a Washington, D.C. address for Defendant. Because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant resides in this District or that a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying

her claim arose in this District, venue does not appear to be proper in this District under § 1391(b)(1) or (2). Even if venue were proper here, however, the Court may transfer claims “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.”

(a). “District courts have broad discretion in making determinations of convenience under Section 1404(a) and notions of convenience and fairness are considered on a case-by-case basis.” D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener,

(2d Cir. 2006). Moreover, courts may transfer cases on their own initiative. See Bank of Am., N.A. v. Wilmington Trust FSB,

(S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Courts have an independent institutional concern to see to it that the burdens of litigation that is unrelated to the forum that a party chooses are not imposed

unreasonably on jurors and judges who have enough to do in determining cases that are appropriately before them. The power of district courts to transfer cases under Section 1404(a) sua sponte therefore is well established.” (quoting Cento v. Pearl Arts & Craft Supply Inc., No. 03-CV-2424,

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2003))); see also Lead Indus. Ass’n. Inc. v. OSHA.,

, 79 (2d Cir. 1979) (noting that “broad language of

(a) would seem to permit a court to order transfer sua sponte”). In determining whether transfer is appropriate, courts consider the following factors: (1) the convenience of witnesses; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) the locus of operative facts; (4) the availability of process to compel the attendance of the unwilling witnesses; (5) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7) the forum’s familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded to the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (9) trial efficiency; and (10) the interest of justice, based on the totality of circumstances. Keitt v. N.Y. City,

(S.D.N.Y. 2011); see

also N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge No. Am., Inc.,

(2d Cir. 2010) (setting forth similar factors). A plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded less deference where plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum and the operative events did not occur there. See Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp.,

, 72 (2d Cir. 2001). Under § 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case. The underlying events most likely occurred in Southampton (Suffolk County), New York, where Plaintiff resides. Suffolk County, New York falls within the Eastern District of New York. See

(c). Venue is therefore proper in the Eastern District of New York. See

(b). Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

(a). CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed further without prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. A summons shall not issue from this Court. This order closes this case. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States,

(1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED. Dated: July 14, 2021 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge