Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Ferens v. John Deere Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureTransfer of VenueChoice of LawDiversity Jurisdiction28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)transfer of venuechoice of lawdiversity

Facts

Ferens lost his right hand in Pennsylvania while using a combine harvester manufactured by Deere. After Pennsylvania's 2-year tort limitations period expired, the Ferenses filed contract and warranty claims in federal court in Pennsylvania and separately filed negligence and products liability claims in federal court in Mississippi, where venue and diversity jurisdiction were proper and where Mississippi's 6-year statute of limitations would apply to the tort action. The Ferenses then moved under § 1404(a) to transfer the Mississippi tort suit to Pennsylvania for convenience, expecting Mississippi choice-of-law rules, including its limitations rule, to follow the case. The Pennsylvania federal court refused to apply Mississippi's statute of limitations and dismissed the tort action as time-barred.

Issue

When a plaintiff in a diversity case files in one proper federal district and then successfully moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to another federal district for convenience, must the transferee court apply the choice-of-law rules of the transferor court or those of the transferee court?

Rule

A transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not change the law applicable to a diversity case. The transferee court must apply the law, including the choice-of-law rules, that would have been applied in the transferor court, regardless of who initiated the transfer.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel, an Ohio citizen, sued Red Mesa Outdoor Systems, a Nevada corporation, in federal district court in New Mexico based on diversity. Venue was proper there, and New Mexico's choice-of-law rules would apply a longer limitations period; after filing, Nina moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to federal court in Ohio because nearly all witnesses and documents were located in Cleveland.

After the transfer, which law should the Ohio federal court apply to determine the applicable state limitations rule?

Explanation. The majority held that after a transfer under § 1404(a), the transferee court must apply the law, including the choice-of-law rules, of the transferor court regardless of whether the plaintiff or defendant initiated the transfer. Section 1404(a) is a housekeeping measure that changes courtrooms, not governing state law, in diversity cases.