Venue Flashcards
The owner of a parcel of land in State A, the owner’s state of residence, entered into a contract with a company to construct a residence on the land. The contract called for any dispute arising from the contract to be brought in a state court in State A. When a contract dispute did arise, the land owner filed suit in federal court in State B, where the company was incorporated. The company has challenged the venue of this court.
Of the following, which option is most likely to be available to the court?
Dismissal of the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Forum non conveniens is a common-law doctrine that allows a court to dismiss an action—even if personal jurisdiction and venue are otherwise proper—if the court finds that the forum would be too inconvenient for parties and witnesses, and that another more convenient venue is available. The appropriate way to enforce a forum-selection clause pointing to a state or foreign forum is to seek dismissal through the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Therefore, this is the most likely remedy available to the court in this case.
A corporate executive sued his corporate employer in federal district court for wrongful termination of his employment contract. In good faith, the executive alleged damages of $500,000. The executive resided in the court’s judicial district. The employer is incorporated and has its principal place of business in the judicial district of another federal district court, which is located in a different state. Substantial events relating to the executive’s contractual claim have occurred in both judicial districts. On the basis of convenience, the corporation has timely filed a motion to transfer this action to the federal district court in which the corporation is incorporated and has its principal place of business. The executive has opposed this motion. The forum court has determined that, in the interest of justice, and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, the action should be transferred.
Is the forum court’s determination correct?
Yes, because the action could have initially been brought in the federal district court to which the defendant seeks to transfer the case.
In order for a federal district court to transfer an action to another federal district court for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, the transferor court must determine that the action could have been initiated in the transferee court or that all parties consent to the transfer. It is not sufficient that the transferor court merely determines that the transfer would be convenient for the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Here, the transferee court clearly would have had subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity, personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and proper venue.
In a state court of general jurisdiction in State A, a debtor, who was a resident of State A, brought suit against a lender, who was an alien with permanent residency status in State B, for violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The lender waived personal jurisdiction. Under state procedural rules, venue was proper in the state court. The lender timely removed the action to the federal court for the Northern District of State A, which was the district in which the state court sat. The lender then timely moved to dismiss the action for improper venue, noting that, had the action initially been brought in federal court, the federal court for the Northern District of State A would not have had proper venue over this action.
How should the court rule on this motion?
Deny the motion, because the state court sat in the federal Northern District of State A.
In a case that is removed from state court, venue is proper in the federal district court in the district where the state action was pending. Since this action was removed from a state court in the Northern District of State A, venue is proper in the federal district court for the Northern District of State A.
A sports fan filed a state court action, based on an alleged assault and battery at a sporting event, against a private security officer and his employer.
The forum state has multiple federal judicial districts. On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the defendants removed the action from state court to the federal district court for the district in which the state court was located. The fan is domiciled in the forum state, but neither the fan’s residence nor the sporting venue is located in the district in which the federal court is located. The officer is domiciled in a neighboring state and the firm, which is incorporated and has its principal place of business in a third state, regularly does business in the forum state. On the basis of improper venue, the fan has challenged the removal of this action from state court to federal court.
How should the federal court rule on this challenge?
Deny the challenge, because the state court was located within the district of the federal district court at issue.
Under Section 1441(a) of the removal statute, an action may be removed to the federal court in the district where the state action is pending. That removal statute determines venue, regardless of whether venue would have been proper under the venue statute (Section 1391) if plaintiff had originally brought the action in that federal district court.
The plaintiff resides in a city in the Southern District of State C. The plaintiff credibly alleges that her federal legal rights were violated in a city in the Western District of State D by two defendants. The first defendant resides in a city in the Northern District of State C. The second defendant resides in a town in the Central District of State C, where the plaintiff’s employer is located.
In which of the following districts would venue be proper as to all the parties?
The Western District of State D, the Northern District of State C, or the Central District of State C.
Venue is proper in the district in which “a substantial part of the events” occurred that form the basis of the plaintiff’s claim. The Western District of State D meets this test. Venue is also proper in a district in which “any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state in which the district is located.” Because the first defendant resides in the Northern District of State C, he can be sued there, and so can the second defendant because she also resides in State C, the state in which the Northern District of State C lies. Conversely, because the second defendant resides in the Central District of State C, she can be sued there, and so can the first defendant because he also resides in State C. However, neither Defendant resides in the Southern District of State C, so venue is not proper in that district.
A jeweler who is a citizen and resident of a foreign country brought some jewels into the United States to sell at a convention. A buyer purchased the jewels from the jeweler, whom he had not previously met, but whom he knew by reputation to be an honest businessperson. Subsequently, the buyer discovered that the jeweler had misrepresented the quality of the jewels. The buyer has filed an action in the federal court for the district in which he resides against the jeweler based on a state law claim of misrepresentation. The convention had been held in another state. The jeweler has timely filed a motion to dismiss this action based on lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, as well as improper venue. The court properly determined that it has subject matter and personal jurisdiction.
Should the court grant the motion as it relates to improper venue?
No, because a nonresident of the United States may be sued in any judicial district.
A defendant who is not a resident of the United States may be sued in any judicial district. Because the jeweler is a resident of a foreign country, the jeweler may be sued in the federal district court for the district in which the buyer resides.
A professional musician entered into a written contract with an instrument maker to craft a banjo. The contract was negotiated and executed in the state in which the musician resides. The banjo was made at a workshop located in another state across the country. The maker resides near his workshop in a third state. Each of the three states has a single federal judicial district.
The musician traveled to the maker’s workshop, where he picked up the banjo and paid for it. Subsequently, the musician discovered a defect in the banjo. The musician filed suit in the federal district court for the state in which he resides.
Is venue proper there?
Yes, because a substantial part of the events or omissions on which the claim is based occurred in the state.
Venue is proper in a judicial district in which a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on which the claim is based occurred. Because the contract was negotiated and executed in the state of the musician’s residence and because that state has a single federal judicial district, venue would be proper in that state.
A plaintiff brought a tort action in diversity against two defendants based on fraud that occurred while the plaintiff was on a business trip in a foreign country with the two defendants. The plaintiff filed the action in the federal district court located in a state adjacent to the state in which the plaintiff resides. One of the defendants is domiciled in the forum state, but resides in the other federal judicial district in that state. The other defendant, who resides across the country in a third state, but was served with process in the forum state, has filed a timely motion to dismiss the action for lack of proper venue.
How is the court likely to rule on this motion?
Deny the motion, because one of the defendants is domiciled in the forum state.
The two most common venue rules do not apply because (1) all of the defendants do not reside in the same state, and (2) the events giving rise to the claim occurred in a foreign country. Hence, in this action, venue is proper in the judicial district in which one of the defendants is subject to personal jurisdiction.
The defendant who is a domiciliary of the forum state is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to an action brought in either federal district court located in that state. Consequently, venue is proper in the forum court.
The owner of an oil and gas lease on federal land brought a declaratory judgment action in federal district court against the owner of an adjacent oil and gas lease also on federal land to resolve a boundary dispute. The land is located in the forum state’s northernmost federal judicial district, where the plaintiff brought the action. Both the plaintiff and defendant are residents of a neighboring state. The forum state’s long-arm statute specifically allows for personal jurisdiction for all actions involving land located within the state. The defendant has timely filed a motion to dismiss the action on the basis of improper venue. The court has granted this motion.
Is the court’s ruling correct?
No, because the property that is the subject of this dispute is located in the forum district.
Venue is proper if at least a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in the judicial district in which venue is proposed. Here the leasehold oil and gas rights are located in the proposed forum judicial district.
An employee has filed an action in federal district court against her employer, a sole proprietor, for violation of federal minimum wage law. The business is not considered to be a separate legal entity from its owner, the employer. All business has been conducted within the geographic boundary of the judicial district of the court in which the action has been filed. The employee resides in the district of another federal trial court located in the same state and the employer resides in the district of a third federal trial court also located in the same state. The employer has timely filed a motion to dismiss the action due to improper venue.
How should the court rule on this motion?
Deny this motion, because the event or omission on which the action is based took place within the judicial district in which the action was filed.
Venue is proper in the judicial district in which a “substantial part of the events or omissions” on which the claim is based occurred. Because all business has been conducted within the geographic boundary of the district of the court in which the action has been filed, venue is proper in that court.
