Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffmotionleaseregulation

plaintiffmotionmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Alvarado v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 2303758

Facts

Plaintiffs, citizens of Honduras, fled their country after facing violence and intimidation, arriving in Texas on January 16, 2015. They were detained by CBP and ICE at the South Texas Family Residential Center until May 14, 2015, during which they allege mistreatment in violation of federal regulations. After their release, they filed administrative claims under the FTCA, which were denied, leading to the current lawsuit initiated on August 17, 2016.

In November 2014, Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado, A.S.R., and A.S.R.'s father, Jose Rafael Sanchez Villatoro (“Mr. Sanchez”) fled Honduras for the United States.

Issue

Whether the venue for the Plaintiffs' FTCA claims is properly laid in New Jersey, given the Government's argument that Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado, as an alien, cannot establish residency in the forum.

The Government first contends that venue is improperly laid in New Jersey as to Plaintiff Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado because, as an alien, she cannot establish residency in the forum.

Rule

FTCA actions against the United States may be prosecuted only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or where the act or omission complained of occurred, as per 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b). The definition of 'resides' is informed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which states that a natural person, including an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, is deemed to reside in the judicial district where that person is domiciled.

FTCA actions against the United States “may be prosecuted only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b) (emphasis added).

Analysis

The court found that the plain text of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1) allows all non-citizens, regardless of their legal status, to establish residency where they are domiciled. The court determined that Ms. Rodriguez Alvarado, having been granted withholding of removal, was lawfully present in New Jersey and had established her domicile there, thus making venue proper in this district.

The plain text of 1391(c)(1) authorizes all non-citizens—regardless of LPR status—to establish residency where they are domiciled.

Conclusion

The court denied the Government's motion to transfer the case to Texas, concluding that the Plaintiffs would face significant hardship if required to litigate in Texas, and that the Government failed to demonstrate that a transfer would promote convenience or justice.

For the reasons set forth above, the Government’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue, Dkt. No. 17, is DENIED.

Who won?

Plaintiffs prevailed in this case because the court found that they established proper venue in New Jersey, countering the Government's arguments regarding residency and hardship.

The Court disagrees.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Clune v. U.S., 159 U.S. 590, 16 S.Ct. 125, 40 L.Ed. 269

Ady v. American Honda Finance Corp., 675 So.2d 577, 21 Fla. L. Weekly S130

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 55 Fed.R.Serv.3d 690, 61 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1043, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5213, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6633

Carlisle v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 10056329

U.S. v. Broce Const. Co., Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1983 WL 1953, 1984-1 Trade Cases P 65,849