Getting started with motions; challenges to venue

Question 1

Case: Macmunn v Eli Lilly 2008
***** if the defendant can transfer his case based on principles of inconvenience and justice. Court held yes

Answer 1

Issue
The issue in this case was whether the court should grant Eli Lilly Co.’s motion to transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts based on the principles of convenience and justice, given the alleged ties to Massachusetts.

Holding
The court held in favor of Eli Lilly Co., granting the motion to transfer the case to the District of Massachusetts.

Reasoning
The court reasoned that the case’s core elements largely revolved around Massachusetts, including the residence of most crucial witnesses and sources of proof (e.g., medical records and witnesses relevant to the DES exposure). The court noted that the plaintiff’s choice of forum typically holds substantial weight, yet it is outweighed when the chosen forum lacks meaningful ties to the substantive issues of the case. The private interest factors, like the convenience of potential witnesses and access to evidence, and the public interest factors, such as Massachusetts’s interest in applying its laws and its courts’ docket congestion, favored the transfer. Additionally, it was important that Massachusetts law would likely govern the substantive issues, thus making Massachusetts the more appropriate venue.

Question 2

Case: Piper Aircraft Co. v Reyvo 1981 ** if the petitioners can move for inconvenience forum aka forum non convenient for foreign countries. The court held no and the case must be heard in Scotland, and it doesn’t matter that Scotland laws are laxed

Answer 2

Issue
The primary issue was whether the possibility of an unfavorable change in substantive law should prevent dismissal of cases under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, especially when a foreign plaintiff chooses a U.S. forum for its favorable laws.

Holding
The U.S. Supreme Court held that an unfavorable change in law should not automatically bar dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The decision reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling, which had prevented dismissal due to the less favorable Scottish law.

Question 3

Motions are:

Answer 3

a request for a court order to be made to the court in writing unless made during a hearing or trial.

state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order

asking for relief

Question 4

Forum non conveniens dismissal

Answer 4

inconvenience forum and should file for a motion to dismiss 28 USC § 1404

Question 5

2 types of venue related to motions

Answer 5

1. improper venue 28 USC § 1406
2. inconvience 28 USC § 1404

Question 6

transferred v dismissal

Answer 6

If case is transfeered the plaintiff will not pay fees. A judge can not transfer to a different state only within the state. TIP: Case Eli Lily won and was granted transfer due to private and publkic sector reasons to have the case heard in MAssachuttes because most of the case reiled in massachutes such as witnesses etc..

Dismissal is plaintiff has to refile and pay fees again. TIP Piperaircraft v Reyno was dismissed and sent back so the plaintiff can file in Scotland. They wanted to file in Pennsylvania because it was convenient for USA.