Venue Flashcards
A baker who lives in State A (a state with only one federal judicial district, the U.S. District Court for the District of State A) had a contract with a supplier (a natural person living in the Southern District of State B) and a courier (a natural person living in the Northern District of State B). The contract, which was to deliver ingredients to the baker’s shop in State A, was negotiated and signed in the Southern District of State B. The baker wishes to assert contract claim in federal court based on the supplier and courier’s failure to deliver the ingredients on time as agreed, in breach of their contract. The baker’s damages amount to $100,000.
Is venue proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of State A?
Yes, because the supplier and courier’s failure to perform under the contract as agreed occurred in State A.
Correct. The contract was to be performed in State A. The failure of the defendants to perform and to deliver the ingredients under the contract terms is an “omission” that gave rise to the baker’s claim and the “omission” occurred in State A. As such, State A is a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
After several years of working in a coal mine in State A, a coal miner from State A became very ill. The coal miner initiated an action in federal court against an oxygen mask manufacturer incorporated and headquartered in State B (a state with only one federal judicial district), and a coal company incorporated in State B and headquartered in the Southern District of State C. The coal miner’s theory of liability was that the coal company maintained unreasonably dangerous conditions at its mine located in the Northern District of State C, and that the manufacturer produced defective oxygen masks, which were produced at its factory in State D. The manufacturer does not ship its masks to its customers; rather, the coal company purchases and collects the oxygen masks in State D. The coal miner filed the claim in the Southern District of State C.
The oxygen mask manufacturer filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. How is the court likely to rule on the motion?
Grant the motion, because the manufacturer does not reside in State C nor did a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occur in the Southern District of State C.
Correct. Both defendants would have to reside in State C for venue to be proper there for either defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). The manufacturer has neither its principal place of business nor its place of incorporation in State C. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). Nor does the manufacturer have related minimum contacts with State C, given that it does not ship masks to State C. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2); Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958). The other way for venue to be proper in the Southern District of State C would be if a substantial part of the events giving rise to the coal miner’s claim for the manufacture of defective masks occurred there; but the facts do not indicate that any part of the events giving rise to that claim occurred in the Southern District of State C. Rather, the coal mine is located in the Northern District of State C, and the manufacture and delivery of masks occurred in State D. Thus, there is no basis for the Southern District of State C to be a proper venue. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
A consumer from State A fell ill after consuming apples in State A. These apples were grown in State B by a farmer who lives there. The farmer sold the apples to a grocery chain incorporated and with its principal place of business in State C; the farmer shipped the apples directly to the grocery chain in State C, where they were alleged to have been handled and stored in a manner that made them unfit for human consumption. The grocery chain, which operates grocery stores in every U.S. state, sold some of the farmer’s apples to the consumer at one of its stores in State A, even though the apples were now unsafe. Each of these states (States A, B, and C) has only a single federal judicial district.
The consumer has initiated an action against the farmer and the grocery chain in State C federal court, arguing that the defendants did not properly handle the apples. The farmer has moved to dismiss the claim for improper venue. How is the court likely to rule on the motion?
Deny it, because the mishandling of the apples in question occurred in State C.
Correct. Venue is proper in any district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Here, the apples in question were handled in State C, a time during which the mishandling of the apples caused them to become harmful to consume. Thus, State C is a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
A driver from State A was injured when his car was rear-ended by a truck and caught fire in State B. The car driver initiated an action in which the driver asserted a products liability claim against the manufacturer of the car and a negligence claim against the company that owned the truck. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of State C.
The manufacturer is a company incorporated in Germany and with its principal place of business in the Southern District of State C. The Northern District of State C is where the car was designed and manufactured. The company that owns the truck is a company incorporated in State B and headquartered in the Eastern District of State C.
The car manufacturer moved to dismiss the claim against it for improper venue. How is the court likely to rule on this motion?
Deny it, because both the manufacturer and the truck company reside in State C, making the Eastern District of State C—the location of the truck company’s headquarters—a proper venue.
Correct. Because the manufacturer and the truck company both reside in State C based on their respective principal places of business, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2), any district in which any defendant resides may be used. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). The truck company resides in the Eastern District of State C based on its principal place of business and thus it is a proper venue.
Two passengers from State A were injured when a bus they were riding in ran off the road and crashed in Rome, Italy. The bus company is incorporated in State B and has its principal place of business in the Southern District of State C. The bus driver is a citizen of State D. The two passengers initiated an action against the bus company and the bus driver for negligence in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of State C.
The bus driver has moved to dismiss the action for improper venue. How is the court likely to rule on this motion?
Deny it, because the bus company is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of State C.
Correct. It’s correct under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) because neither of the other two bases for laying venue provide an eligible district. First, the two defendants, one natural person and one corporation, reside in different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1), (c)(2). Thus, § 1391(b)(1) does not provide a proper venue. Second, none of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the Northern District of State C or in any federal district in the United States, so § 1391(b)(2) cannot provide a proper venue. The fallback provision—28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3)—thus becomes available, permitting venue in any district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Because the company is headquartered in State C, it is subject to personal jurisdiction in every district within that state. Note: this does not mean that the company “resides” in the Northern District of State C; it only resides in those districts with which it has minimum contacts. But here we are not determining and applying the company’s residency for purposes of § 1391(b)(1); rather, we are simply determining where the company is subject to personal jurisdiction, which is a state-level analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3).
ABC, Inc., an oil company headquartered and incorporated in State A, initiated a breach of contract action in the U.S. District Court for the District of State A against a Russian oil supplier (a natural person living in Russia), seeking $10 million. The claim was based on the breach of a contract negotiated and signed in State A for the production and delivery of oil from northern Russia to ABC’s refinery in Norway. The oil supplier allegedly delivered oil that was of substandard quality, ultimately causing substantial damage to ABC’s refinery.
You represent the oil supplier. Which of the following strategies is most likely to succeed in getting this case dismissed?File a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
File a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.
Correct. The evidence and witnesses related to this dispute are likely to be outside the United States and the trial would likely be more practically litigated either in Russia or Norway. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981). None of the other indicated strategies would succeed here. Venue is proper, as non-residents of the United States may be sued in any district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). There are enough minimum contacts with the forum state to establish personal jurisdiction. International Shoe Co. v. Washingotn , 326 U.S. 310 (1945). Diversity jurisdiction exists because the dispute is between a U.S. citizen and an alien for more than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (c).
A clothing manufacturer incorporated in State A with its principal place of business and all other operations in State B initiated an action in State A federal court against a German corporation for breach of contract. The contract was negotiated in Germany and exclusively concerned actions to be performed in Germany. State A has one federal judicial district. The German corporation is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Germany and has no contacts with the United States.
The German corporation filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. How is the court likely to rule?
Deny the motion, because defendants not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district.
Correct. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) permits nonresident defendants to be sued in any judicial district. The German corporation is not a U.S. resident because it is not subject to general or specific personal jurisdiction in any part of the United States in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2); Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014); World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980).
An investor from State A entered into a joint venture contract with an entrepreneur (a natural person) domiciled in State B and a software designer (a natural person) domiciled in France. The venture’s goal was to design, market, and sell a new application for mobile devices, with the proceeds of the enterprise to be divided equally among all three parties to the contract. A year after making the investment, the investor had not received any proceeds from the enterprise, even though the application had been successfully developed and was being sold throughout the world.
The investor initiated an action in State B federal court against the entrepreneur and the software designer for breach of contract, seeking $1 million in damages.
The entrepreneur moved to dismiss the action for improper venue. How is the court likely to rule?
Deny the motion, because the entrepreneur is a resident of State B.
Correct. The residency of a non-U.S. resident codefendant is disregarded for purposes of determining venue. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). Thus, the only remaining defendant whose residency counts—the entrepreneur—is domiciled in State B, making venue proper there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (c)(1).
A skier residing in the Southern District of State A went skiing in State B, which has only one federal judicial district. While there, the skier bought some skis from a friend who lives in the District of State B. The skis were manufactured by ABC Corp., a State C corporation that operates exclusively in the Western District of State C. The skier brought the skis back to the Northern District of State A, where he was injured using them.
The skier initiated an action against the friend and ABC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of State C, alleging that the friend was negligent in maintaining the skis and that ABC was negligent in manufacturing them.
ABC filed a motion to dismiss the claim against it for improper venue. Should the court grant the motion?
No, because the skis were manufactured in State C.
Correct. What makes the Western District of State C proper for the negligent manufacturing claim is the fact that the skis in question were (allegedly) negligently manufactured there, making it a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the skier’s claim occurred. As a result, venue is proper there under § 1391(b)(2).
A patron (State A domiciliary) of a bar was in a fight with the bartender (State B domiciliary) and the security guard (State C domiciliary) at a bar located in the State A. The patron initiated a battery action against the bartender and the security guard in State B federal court. Each of these states has only one federal judicial district.
If the bartender moves to dismiss the case for improper venue, how is the court likely to rule?
Grant the motion, because the security guard does not reside in State B and the alleged battery did not occur in State B.
Correct. Because the defendants do not both reside in State B, the residency of the bartender may not serve as a basis for establishing venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Because none of the events giving rise to the patron’s claim occurred in State B, State B may not serve as a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Because venue would be proper in State A (the location of the fight) under § 1391(b)(2), the fallback provision of § 1391(b)(3) is unavailable. Thus, the motion should be granted.
A consumer from State A initiated an action against Delta Corp. and Harmony, Inc. in the Eastern District of State B for personal injuries caused by a product that the defendants manufactured jointly at their plant in the Western District of State B. The consumer was injured by the product in State A. Delta and Harmony are incorporated in the State C (a single-district state). Delta’s principal place of business is in the Western District of State A and Harmony’s principal place of business is in State D.
If Delta moves to dismiss the action for improper venue, how is the court likely to rule?
Grant the motion, because neither Harmony nor Delta reside in the Eastern District of State B and no part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred there.
Correct. Corporations reside only in those districts with which they have sufficient contacts to subject them to personal jurisdiction, which would include the Western District of State B based on their joint manufacture of the product in question there, but not the Eastern District. Further, no events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the Eastern District of State B, making venue unavailable there under any provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
A business owner from State A initiated an action against ABC and XYZ in the Southern District of State A for damages that their software caused to her computer systems and network located there. The software was the product of a collaboration between ABC and XYZ at their respective principal places of business. The business owner purchased the software by downloading it from ABC’s website while in her office, which is located in the Southern District of State A. ABC is incorporated in State C and has its principal place of business the Western District of State B. XYZ is incorporated in State C and has its principal place of business in the Northern District of State A.
If XYZ moves to dismiss the action for improper venue, how is the court likely to rule?
Deny the motion, because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the Southern District of State A.
Correct. The software was downloaded in the Southern District of State A, causing damage to the business owner’s computer systems and network there. Thus, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue would be proper in the Southern District of State A.
A pedestrian from State A initiated a negligence action against a driver from State B for causing a collision between the two. The pedestrian filed the claim in the Eastern District of State C because the accident happened there and because it was near her home in State A.
The driver responded by filing a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of State B, where the driver’s home is located. Is the court likely to grant the motion?
No, because the witnesses and evidence relating to the accident are likely located in the Eastern District of State C and because that district is convenient for the pedestrian, which entitles it to some deference.
Correct. A court may ordinarily transfer a properly venued action to another judicial district if it would be a proper venue and if it would be for “the convenience of the parties and witnesses” and in the “interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Although this is a discretionary decision, in this case the facts suggest that it would not be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor in the interest of justice to transfer the case because the evidence, witnesses, and the plaintiff are in or near to the Eastern District of State C (the place of the accident). Thus, a transfer should be denied, notwithstanding the fact that the Northern District of State B would qualify as a proper venue based on the defendant’s residency there. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (c)(1).
A venture capital firm organized as a State A partnership with its principal place of business in the Northern District of State A entered into a financing agreement with a State B-headquartered industrial valve manufacturer incorporated in State C. The manufacturer makes a special valve that dramatically increases the safety associated with deep-water oil drilling. In exchange for providing funding on a quarterly basis, the venture capital firm was given a 40% equity stake in the manufacturer.
Last October, the venture capital firm failed to pay an installment of the funds it had promised to the manufacturer, causing it to miss an important business opportunity. The manufacturer filed a breach of contract claim against the venture capital firm in the Southern District of State B, the location of the manufacturer’s headquarters and production facilities.
The funding agreement included a clause indicating, “All disputes arising under this contract must be litigated in a court located in State A.” The venture capital firm thus filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of State A. Under the law of State B, such clauses are enforceable.
Which of the following would be an appropriate ruling of the court on the transfer motion?
Grant it, because federal courts enforce valid, mandatory forum-selection clauses via transfer motions.
Correct. The Supreme Court has held that valid, mandatory forum-selection clauses should be enforced via the federal transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Atl. Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 66 (2013) (“When the parties have agreed to a valid forum-selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that clause.”).
A landowner from State A initiated an ejectment action against a trespasser from State B in State B federal court. The landowner also sought $80,000 for damages to the property caused by the trespasser. The trespasser filed a motion dismiss the case for improper venue; that motion was denied. The trespasser then moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of State A, where the land in question is located.
Which of the following would be an appropriate decision of the court with respect to this motion?
Grant it, because the land is located in State A, making State A the place where the evidence and witnesses relevant to this claim are more likely to be found.
Correct. Hearing the case in State A where the land in question is located would likely be more convenient for the plaintiff and the witnesses; and presumably State A is more convenient for the defendant, as the trespasser is requesting the transfer. State A is also likely to be the place where any relevant evidence is located. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Note that it would be within a court’s discretion to deny the transfer motion under these circumstances, just not for either of the reasons offered in the other options.
