Venue, People with Two Homes, and Commentator / Retired Judge Andrew Napolitano
From today’s decision in Corbishley v. Napolitano, by Judge Vernon S. Broderick:
Plaintiff Charles Corbishley brought suit in this Court on September 11, 2020, under diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues that venue is proper is this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because Defendant resides in New York City, and does not identify any other reason why venue would be proper in this District.
The Complaint alleges four counts brought under New Jersey Stat. § 2A:14-2b. According to the Complaint, Defendant, then a New Jersey Superior Court Judge presiding over a case in which Corbishley was a criminal defendant, sexually assaulted Corbishley at a residence in Hackensack, New Jersey, in or around December 1988. [Judge Napolitano immediately sued Corbishley in a separate case,] alleging that Plaintiff’s allegations in his Complaint and statements to the press and public through counsel and agents amount to defamation against Napolitano….
Section 1406 [of Title 28 of the U.S. Code] provides that “[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” … [Title] 28 U.S.C. § 1391 … determines that “[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 a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; 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.”
For purposes of § 1391(b)(1), “a natural person … shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled.”
The essence of
Article from Latest – Reason.com