Venue Terms Flashcards
Venue Generally 28 USC 1391
Tell us exactly which district the case should go to
- concerns, geographic location of suit
-generally, D’s residence (domicile) or location is a substantial part of events giving rise to claim - lawyer looks a statute solely. It’s not a constitutional matter and can always be waived
-
P has burden of establishing proper venue
- if D disagrees with venue, D can file 12b3 to dismiss for lack of venue
- to win on motion to dismiss, have to show that P chose NONE of the good options (not that it doesn’t exist)
- thumb on scale in favor of P’s forum choice so evidence for removal needs to be persuasive
- if D disagrees with venue, D can file 12b3 to dismiss for lack of venue
- Failure of venue subjects P to transfer or dismissal
- Administrative role: allocates cases among courts of the same type of a single judicial system, which can prevent docket congestion
- Does not raise any federal questions jurisdiction
-
sorts cases vertically between federal and state courts:
- mostly about efficiency
- Venue at the federal level can exist in multiple courts
- all codes provide for venue in transitory actions arising within and without state (ex: special provisions for divorce actions, against executors, specific recovery of personal property)
What Venue Statutes Consider
- nature of P (resident, nonresident, corporation, domestic or foreign)
- Subject action is situated
- where cause of action arose
- Local Action Doctrine = where tort occurred
- Corps might have offices that are pretty remote where the lawsuit happened so we embed this action due to our modern interstate life
- where some fact is present
- where resides—their convenience
- Where does business or has an office, agent, representative
- where D’s agent/officer resides
- Where P is doing business
- In the county for P’s complaint
- Community interest (ex: Flint water issue)
- court that has expertise
Federal Venue Statute — FQJ or Diversity
1391(b)(1)(3) - Venue where:
- all D’s reside (if a single state) OR
- where a “ substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” or where disputed property is situated
- if not the above, any state with PJ over ANY d (only applies when no district anywhere in US that will meet above criteria—rare)
Does not apply to removal cases; only original jurisdiction
1391(c)(1) - Individual residence for venue - domicile
Corporations and business entities
- 1391(c)(2): venue in any district where subject to personal jurisdiction
- 1391(d): if the state has multiple federal districts, venue in district with which entity has sufficient contacts (in the PJ sense)
Special provisions: foreign D’s, federal D’s, patent, antitrust, discrimination, etc. (specific trumps)
Venue Defects
Venue is a waivable defect
- motion to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) or sua sponte: have to show that P chose NONE of proper venue
Transfer of venue (federal system): 28 USC 1404
- to a district in which the case originally could have been brought (Hoffman v. Blaski, 1404(a))
- for the convenience of the parties
- in the interest of justice
28 USC 1404 Change of venue
(A) For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented
- Transferee court must have personal jurisdiction over D (Hoffman v. Blaski); or need consent by all parties (but P won’t likely agree)
28 USC 1406 Cure or waiver of defects
a) the district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district 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
b) nothing in this chapter shall impair the jurisdiction of a district of any matter involving a party who does not not interpose timely and sufficient objection to the venue
28 USC 1631 - Transfer to cure want of jurisdiction
Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as defined in section 610 of this title or an appeal, including a petition for a review of administrative action, is noticed for or filed with such a court, and that court finds that there is want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if its in interest of justice transfer such action or appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as if it have Been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred
Transfer Generally
Determined by:
- convenience (parties/witnesses)
- cost facts (cost/time/logistical burdens, how much they’d decrease from transfer)
- interest in justice (economic view)
- when not in the interest in justice: the moving party has engraged in bad faith—not to make easier on both parties or witnesses, but just bully Ps
Alternative to dismissal
- if you don’t have venue, could be transferred or dismissed
Forum non Conveniens
dismiss in favor of alternate forum (usually abroad). since you can’t “transfer” to non-American courts, dismissal is the only procedural option—before this happens, need to assure the court is adequate/has jurisdiction itself over case (quasi-merits action)
-apply when transfer and venue don’t work (don’t have venue so not a stand-in for 1406)
-common law default rule underlying federal transfer law
- discretionary decision of court of competent jurisdiction
- also a doctrine of state law since across state lines, cannot do transfer
-
substantive law follows the case from transferor court to transferee court in diversity cases:
- will apply the choice of law rules that the transferor court would have applied (binding authority NOT persuasive)
Gulf Oil Corp v. Gilbert (considerations relevant to FNC); Piper Aircraft v. Reyno (public & private interest factors)
Case where the doctrine of forum non conveniens presupposes at least two forums where D is amenable to processes
Gulf Oil Corp v. Gilbert
The doctrine furnishes criteria for choice between them
2 preconditions:
- Court has jurisdiction and venue
- And an alternative forum exists
- Dismiss?
Public Interest = reasons why trying the case here is a bad idea
- administrative burdens
- court clog
- community relationship to case—interest to have litigated in your courts —> fewer people will try to avoid jury duty because want to resolve case
- whose law will govern on the merits
Private interest = convenience factors to parties
- where the evidence/disputed property are
- cost of trying case in P’s initially pleaded forum
- availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling
