Order | Filed: June 25, 2026
| Entered: June 25, 2026
Jafri v. Arnold and Smith Law PLLC et al
Contract: Other | New York Eastern
Order(Other)
ORDER: Plaintiff's 21 motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and interim fees and costs is denied. Defendants argue that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them and that venue in this district is improper. Plaintiff responds that the Court may issue "emergency injunctive relief even where jurisdiction is contested," Reply in Supp. of TRO (Dkt. #37), and does not address defendants' jurisdiction and venue arguments.
Plaintiff's motion is denied because she has not shown that this district is a proper venue for her suit--a prerequisite for granting relief in light of defendants' challenge. The Court addresses venue first because while courts traditionally resolve personal jurisdiction challenges prior to venue challenges, "a court may reverse the normal order" and consider a venue defense first if "there is a sound prudential justification for doing so." Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180 (1979). For instance, courts may reach a venue defense before a personal-jurisdiction defense "where the question of whether there is personal jurisdiction over a defendant is close and likely to yield further litigation." Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters Corp. v. Ringside, Inc., 928 F. Supp. 2d 735, 741 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); Burlingame v. Argo Private Client Grp., Ltd., No. 25-CV-1704 (JMF), 2025 WL 3653245, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2025). Given that the personal jurisdiction question presents somewhat complex issues without the benefit of adversarial briefing, the Court addresses venue first.
When a defendant objects to venue, a district court must address venue before it can decide the merits of a motion for a preliminary injunction. See Hendricks v. Bank of Am., N.A., 408 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Arrowsmith v. United Press Int'l, 320 F.2d 219, 221 (2d Cir. 1963) (Friendly, J.) (stating that venue should be addressed "prior to consideration of the merits"); Adrianza v. Trump, 505 F. Supp. 3d 164, 173 (E.D.N.Y. 2020), vacated on other grounds, 2021 WL 10140434 (2d Cir. Oct. 13, 2021). Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing proper venue. Hsin Ten Enter. USA, Inc. v. Clark Enters., 138 F. Supp. 2d 449, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (quoting G.F.C. Fashions, Ltd. v. Goody's Family Clothing, Inc., No. 97-CV-0730, 1998 WL 78292, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 1998)).
Venue is generally proper in "a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located," or in "a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The complaint contains no allegations as to defendants' residence, and defendants state that none of them resides in the district. As to whether a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred here, defendants state that none of them maintains an office here and that plaintiff appears to operate her law firm from Westchester County, in the Southern District of New York. They note that plaintiff's allegation that she performed legal services for defendants in the Eastern District does not establish that "a substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in this District." Mem. of L. in Opp'n to OTSC 10-13 (Dkt. #27) (quoting Compl. 3 (Dkt. #1)). Plaintiff, in reply, makes no arguments that the Eastern District of New York is a proper venue for her suit. Instead, she argues only that the Court may issue interim relief even where venue is contested. See Reply in Supp. of TRO. But a plaintiff must at minimum make some showing that venue is proper when defendants' arguments "attack[] the district court's authority to grant relief." See Hendricks, 408 F.3d at 1127. Because plaintiff does not do so, plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is denied. Plaintiff's motion for interim fees and costs is therefore also denied. Hanrahan v. Hampton, 446 U.S. 754, 758 (1980) (denying interim fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for non-prevailing party); Polaris Images Corp. v. Cable News Network, Inc., 365 F. Supp. 3d 340, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (requiring clear showing of bad faith before the Court may award interim fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or the Court's inherent power). Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 6/25/2026. (AG)