Opinion
21 Civ. 5488 (AT)
10-11-2022
GENEVIEVE ZIETEK, Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE NURSING & REHAB CENTER. Defendant.
ORDER
ANALISA TORRES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff requested a change of venue from the federal com! in Manhattan to the federal corn! in White Plains. ECF No. 57. On September 12, 2022, the Honorable James L. Cott denied Plaintiffs request. Order, ECF No. 61. On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff appealed Judge Cott's decision. ECF No. 62. On September 22, 2022, Plaintiff filed an additional letter supporting her appeal. ECF No. 63. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff s appeal is DENIED, and Judge Cott's order is AFFIRMED.
Decisions concerning motions for change of venue are non-dispositive and, therefore, subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. See Pictometry Int'l Corp. v. Geospan Corp., No. 09 Civ. 6517, 2011 WL 13213624, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. May 12, 2011) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Rule 18(a)(3) of the Southern District of New York Rules for the Division of Business Among District Judges dictates that civil cases are assigned to the White Plains courthouse when: (1) the claim giving rise to the lawsuit arose in whole or major part in the counties of Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Sullivan, or Westchester (the “Northern Comities”), and (i) at least one party resides in the Northern Comities, or (ii) no party resides in the Southern District; or (2) the claim arose outside the Southern District, and (i) at least some parties reside in the Northern Counties, or (ii) at least half of the parties reside in the Northern Counties.
Judge Cott reasoned that a change of venue was inappropriate because both Plaintiff and Defendant are located in the Bronx, which is within the venue of the Manhattan courthouse of the Southern District. See Order at 1. The events giving rise to the lawsuit also occurred in the Bronx. See Compl., ECF No. 1. Therefore, the conditions for assignment to the White Plains courthouse are not met, and Judge Cott's ruling is not clearly erroneous.
Plaintiff s appeal is DENIED, and Judge Cott's order is AFFIRMED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the appeal at ECF No. 62.
SO ORDERED.