A federal district court that receives a civil action transferred from another district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of parties and witnesses. When the transfer occurs from a district where venue was proper, the transferee court must apply the same state substantive law and choice-of-law rules that the transferor court would have applied.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
2
Plaintiff Requests Transfer After Filing
Tara Tran filed a diversity suit in federal court in New Jersey against a Delaware defendant after venue and jurisdiction were proper there. She later moved under section 1404(a) to transfer the case to Delaware for convenience once she realized New Jersey choice-of-law rules might favor her claims less than Delaware rules. After the transfer, the Delaware federal court must apply New Jersey substantive law and New Jersey choice-of-law rules to the claims.
Defendant Seeks Convenience Transfer
Tessa Takahashi sued a Missouri seed company in federal court in Iowa after venue and jurisdiction were proper there. The defendant moved under section 1404(a) to transfer the case to Missouri for convenience of witnesses and evidence. After the transfer, the Missouri federal court must apply Iowa substantive law and Iowa choice-of-law rules to the warranty and limitations issues rather than switching to Missouri law.
On October 4, 1960, a commercial airliner scheduled to fly from Boston to Philadelphia plunged into Boston Harbor shortly after departing from a Boston airport. This crash led to the institution of over 150 actions for personal injury and wrongful death against the airline, manufacturers of the aircraft, the United States, and in some cases the Massachusetts Port Authority. More than 100 of these actions were brought in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
More than 45 actions were instituted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The present case involves 40 wrongful death actions brought in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by personal representatives of victims of the crash. These plaintiffs are described as Pennsylvania fiduciaries representing the estates of Pennsylvania decedents.
The defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer these actions to the District of Massachusetts. The defendants alleged that most of the witnesses resided there and that over 100 other actions were already pending in that district. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to transfer the actions.
The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court of Appeals held that the District Court had erred and should vacate its transfer order. The Court of Appeals concluded that a transfer could be granted only if the plaintiffs had qualified to sue in Massachusetts at the time the suits were brought in Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review important questions concerning the construction and operation of § 1404(a). Prior citations in the case include the District Court decision at 204 F. Supp. 426 and the Court of Appeals decision at 309 F. 2d 953.
Does the transferee court apply its own state's law after a section 1404(a) transfer from a proper venue?
No. The transferee court must apply the same state substantive law and choice-of-law rules that the transferor court would have applied. This rule prevents parties from using a convenience transfer to obtain a more favorable body of state law.
Supporting sources
Does it matter whether the plaintiff or the defendant requests the transfer?
No. The rule that the transferee court applies the transferor court's state law and choice-of-law rules applies regardless of which party moves for transfer under section 1404(a).
Supporting sources
What happens if the plaintiff files in an inconvenient but favorable forum and then seeks transfer?
The transferee court still must apply the transferor court's state law and choice-of-law rules. The transfer statute addresses convenience only and does not permit a change in governing law.
Supporting sources
494 U.S. 516 (1990)
…forums now that filing-and-transfer is an approved form of shopping for law; plus the costs attending the necessity for transferee courts to figure out the choice-of-law rules (and probably the substantive law) of distant States much more often than our Van Dusen decision would require. It should be noted that the…