UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Hui Zhang, Plaintiff(s), 25-CV-614 (DEH) v.

Canadian Solar Inc. et al., ORDER Defendants.

DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: On January 20, 2025, Plaintiff proceeding pro se filed the Complaint.1 The alleged events giving rise to this action took place outside of this District.2 Moreover, none of the parties to this lawsuit reside in this District.3 Therefore, it is not clear that Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit in the proper venue. Normally, a district court cannot dismiss a case for improper venue without a defendant raising a venue-based objection.4 But when there are “extraordinary circumstances,” the district court can decide on its own to dismiss a case based on improper venue.5 “Extraordinary circumstances” includes when “neither the activities not the parties alleged in th[e] complaint have any relation to th[e] district” where the case is brought.6 This case appears to present an

1 ECF No. 1 2 See id. at 5 (describing the place where the claim occurred as “199 Lishan Road, Gaoxin District, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.”); id. (failing to mention, in statement of facts, any action taken by a defendant that occurred in this District). 3 See id. at 4. One Defendant is based in Canada, and the other two are based in China. 4 See, e.g., Gomez v. USAA Fed. Savs. Bank,

(2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (“A district court may not dismiss a case sua sponte for improper venue absent extraordinary circumstances.”). 5

6 Stich v. Rehnquist,

(2d Cir. 1992). “extraordinary circumstance” justifying the Court to, on its own motion, dismiss the case for improper venue.

By March 10, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a two-page letter on ECF explaining why venue is proper in this District.

SO ORDERED. Dated: February 20, 2025 New York, New York

DALE E. HO United States District Judge