Gilot v. CVS

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
FARRAH GILOT,
Plaintiff,
- against -
CVS,
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
26-CV-0263 (PKC) (PK)
PAMELA K. CHEN, United States District Judge:
Pro se Plaintiff Farrah Gilot has filed this action pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1332, alleging that
Defendant CVS racially profiled her while she was visiting a store in Texas. (See Compl., Dkt. 1
at ECF1 2–7.) Plaintiff applied to waive the filing fees by filing an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). (IFP Mot., Dkt. 2.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court transfers this action
to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
DISCUSSION
If an action is filed in the wrong district court, a court “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.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see, e.g., Covial v. Francillion, No. 24-CV-3125, 2024 WL
2722142, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 28, 2024). 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”;
1 Citations to “ECF” refer to the pagination generated by the Court’s CM/ECF docketing
system and not the document’s internal pagination.
Case 1:26-cv-00263-PKC-PK Document 5 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Although the plaintiff provided an address for
Defendant in Rhode Island, she asserts that the cause of action arose in San Antonio, Texas.
(Compl., Dkt. 1, at ECF 7.) Because no connection to this District is alleged, aside from Plaintiff’s
residence in this District, the Court finds that transfer of this action to the Western District of Texas
is appropriate. See Weddle v. Skidmore Coll., No. 97-CV-5200 (RPP), 1997 WL 473964, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 1997) (“Because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the causes of
action did not occur in this District and venue is thus improper, and because venue is proper in the
Northern District of New York, this case is transferred to United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).”).
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transfer this action to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1406(a). No summons shall issue
from this Court. 	A decision on plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP is reserved for the transferee
court. The provision of Rule 83.1 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of New York, which
requires a seven-day delay, is waived. This order closes this action in this Court.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Pamela K. Chen
Pamela K. Chen
United States District Judge
Dated: January 27, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:26-cv-00263-PKC-PK Document 5 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>