Civil Procedure – Venue | Venue (Law) | Lawsuit

Civil Procedure – Venue

← ← ← ← VENUE – Reading Notes

04/10/2011 00:38:00

Chapter 11—Basic Venue: Statutory Allocation of Cases Within a Court System. ← ← In addition to a court having subject matter jurisdiction over the type of case the plaintiff has filed and personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a court must also be a proper venue. ← ← ← Venue: Refers to the particular court within a court system where a plaintiff can file a law suit. ←  Venue exists to ensure that a case is litigated in a court that is conveniently located and has some connection to the lawsuit or to one or both of the parties. ← Venue is neither constitutionally compelled, nor focused on the defendant’s interests (that’s what makes it different than personal jurisdiction). ← ← Venue statutes: passed by Congress to define which federal districts are proper venues and try, in a general way, to restrict litigation to courts that are convenient given the facts of the case and the location of the parties. ← ← States also have venue statutes: They tend to authorize venue more expansively than general federal venue statutes. So, you have to review state venue statutes. ← ← ← General Federal Venue statutes ← ← Mostly, 28 U.S.C § 1391 defines which federal districts are appropriate venues.

with the big exception of subsection 3. ← ← These two provisions are almost identical. if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated. A judicial district in which any defendant may be found.← § 1391 (a) applies to diversity cases and §1391 (b) applies to most other types of cases. A judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. The meaning of “resident” under subsection 1 For individuals: • A person resides in the last district where she moved with the intent to remain indefinitely. • 1. • 2. if all defendants reside in the same state. For Corporations: ← ← . A judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. ← ← (a) and (b). ← ← (a): • 3. Same as state citizenship. if there is no district the action may otherwise be brought. (b) • ← ← ← ← ← 3. a judicial district where any defendant resides.

← ← Most of the time. such cases arise when the events giving rise to the suit occurred outside the United States. Main factor to consider is contacts with the district.C. §§ 1400 (a) and (b)regulate copyright and patent infringement claims. ← ← Ex: under 28 U.C. ← ← ← ← ← ← The Fallback Provisions Subsection 3 applies when neither subsection 1 nor subsection 2 provides any venue where the action could be brought.• A corporation resides in every federal district where it would be subject to personal jurisdiction if that district were its own state.S. ← ← ← Specialized Venue Statutes ← ← Sections 1391 a and b define which venues are proper “except as otherwise provided by law. ← ← The removal statute: ← 28 U.” ← ← Congress has passed several specialized venue statutes that apply in certain types of cases. §1441 (a) .S.

← ← 28 U.C. § 1406 authorizes a judge to dismiss or transfer a case.S. ← ← Parties can waive an objection to venue. because it saves time. 28 U. but that there is a more appropriate federal district where the case should be litigated.S. ← ← A judge only has the authority to transfer within the same court system. Usually. 1404 is different in that it recognizes the venue is proper. and one in which the case “could have been brought” (in other words where there was personal and subject matter jurisdiction). ← Also. ← If it has merit.C. ← ex: for convenience of parties. this decision is made according to which option serves the interests of justice. hardship and a refilling fee.← requires removal of a state case to the federal district that covers the geographic area where the state court sits. . ← ← Dismiss or transfer? ←  mostly. such as through forum selection clauses. the transferee court must be a proper venue. ← ← They can also consent to venue. ← ← ← Challenges to Venue: Transfers and Dismissals ← ← Statutory transfers and dismissals ←  a defendant can make a motion that asserts the case was filed in improper venue. a transfer would be the best option.

 (3) the local interest in deciding local controversies at home . citing a lack of ties with the particular district assigned.  (2) the defendant's choice of forum.  (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere.  (6) the ease of access to sources of proof. Defendant motions to transfer a products liability case to Massachussetts. Plaintiffs oppose transfer citing numerous cases with same defendant decided in this district.  (2) the relative congestion of the calendars of the potential transferee and transferor courts. unless the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of the defendants.  (5) the convenience of the witnesses. o Public Interest Considerations:  (1) the transferee's familiarity with the governing laws. the defendant must demonstrate that considerations of convenience and the interest of justice weigh in favor of transfer to that district.  (4) the convenience of the parties. Eli Lilly Co.← ← MacMunn v. In considering the motion for transfer of venue. the court defined 2 tests the case must pass: • the defendant must establish that the plaintiff originally could have • brought the action in the proposed transferee district. The court grants motion to transfer. o Private Interest considerations:  (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum.

The families of the dead passengers sued Air Navigation. an Ohio corporation. ← Procedural History ← The complaint was filed in California by Reyno. ← Courts instead use the doctrine of “forum non conveniens”. but does not authorize a court located in a proper venue to dismiss a case on venue grounds. Reyno ← Facts ← A plane manufactured by Piper Aircraft (D1). The defendants’ motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds was granted and Reyno appealed. crashed in Scotland. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. and the estate of the deceased pilot in a separate action in the UK. ← Issues • Can Reyno prevail on the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to Reyno than that of the chosen forum? • Did the district court act unreasonably in concluding that fewer evidentiary problems would arise if the trial were held in Scotland. the operator of the plane (McDonald). Parts of the airplane were manufactured by Hartzell (D2). ← ← Piper Aircraft Co. . a Pennsylvania corporation. Reyno (P) was appointed administrator for the families of five UK citizens involved in a plane crash in their suit against the defendants for negligence and strict liability.← ← ← ← ← Common Law Dismissals: Forum Non Conveniens §1404 permits transfer to a more convenient federal venue. v. and in determining that the public interest factors favored trial in Scotland? ← Holding and Rule ← 1) No. 2) No. The defendants removed to federal district court in California and then successfully sought transfer to Pennsylvania district court.

the possibility of viewing the scene if appropriate to the action. ← Private factors include the relative ease of access to sources of proof. and other practical matters related to making the trial easy. and inexpensive. the court may in the exercise of sound discretion dismiss the case by applying the list of private and public interest factors. availability of compulsory process for the attendance of unwilling witnesses.← When an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear a case and when trial in the chosen forum would establish oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant out of proportion to the plaintiff’s convenience. The court also held that public factors favored Scotland because Scotland had a greater interesting in hearing a case that concerned Scottish citizens. and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. interest in having local controversies adjudicated at home. the cost of attendance of witnesses. ← Public factors include administrative difficulties of the courts. the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws or the application of foreign law. ← Disposition ← Reversed in favor of the defendants. the interest in having the trial in a forum that is familiar with the law governing the action. The court also held that the fact that Scotland might have been less favorable to Reyno did not provide a reason to dismiss the defendants’ motion. ← In a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. or when the chosen forum is inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal concerns. . ← The court held that private factors favored Scotland because the wreckage of the plane and witnesses were there. a court should consider both private and public interest factors. expeditious.

04/10/2011 00:38:00 ← .

04/10/2011 00:38:00 ← .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful