Hoffman v. Blaski

Supreme Court of the United States · 1960 · Civil Procedure

363 U.S. 335 (1960)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureVenueTransfer of Venue28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)§ 1404(a)transferpersonal jurisdictionmight have been brought

Facts

In one case, Illinois plaintiffs filed a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Texas against Texas defendants who resided and did business in Dallas; the defendants then sought transfer to the Northern District of Illinois and agreed to waive objections to venue there. In the other case, plaintiffs filed a stockholders' derivative action in the Northern District of Illinois against Indiana corporate defendants doing business there; the defendants sought transfer to the District of Utah and likewise agreed to waive objections there. Petitioners conceded that both actions were properly brought in the original forums, that statutory venue did not exist in the proposed transferee districts, and that the defendants were not within the reach of process of those transferee courts when the suits were filed. The transfer orders were challenged by mandamus, and the Seventh Circuit held the transfers unauthorized.

Issue

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) permit a district court to transfer a civil action, on the defendant's motion, to a district where the plaintiff had no right to bring the action when suit was filed, merely because the defendant later consents to venue and personal jurisdiction there? Put differently, does "where it might have been brought" refer to forums available to the plaintiff at the time the action was commenced, or also to forums made available later by the defendant's waiver?

Rule

Section 1404(a) authorizes transfer only to a district or division where the plaintiff had a right to bring the action at the time it was commenced, independently of the defendant's wishes. A transferee forum is not one "where it might have been brought" if venue and personal jurisdiction there would have depended on the defendant's later consent, waiver, or other post-filing conduct.

🔒

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.

Nora Leland sued Mesa Forge Systems in the federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona, on a claim for which venue and personal jurisdiction were proper there. Mesa Forge moved to transfer the case to the federal court in Portland, Oregon, arguing Portland would be far more convenient and expressly offering to waive any objection to venue and to accept personal jurisdiction there; when Nora filed suit, however, Mesa Forge had no contacts in Oregon sufficient for service and venue would not have been proper there.

May the Phoenix federal court transfer the action to Portland under § 1404(a)?

Explanation. Section 1404(a) allows transfer only to a district where the action 'might have been brought' when the suit was commenced. Under the majority rule, that means a district where the plaintiff then had a right to sue, independent of the defendant's wishes. Later consent or waiver of venue and personal jurisdiction cannot create transfer power.