Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

MacMunn v. Eli Lilly & Co.

United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2008 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureVenueTransfer of VenueDiversity Jurisdiction28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)venuetransfer

Facts

Plaintiff Judith MacMunn alleged that her mother ingested DES while pregnant with her in 1962, causing injuries including uterine and cervical malformations, infertility, pain, and medical expenses. The plaintiffs filed a seven-count complaint asserting negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium. According to the record discussed by the court, the plaintiffs, the plaintiff's mother, relevant medical providers, and the relevant medical and pharmacy records were all located in Massachusetts. The case was still in an early stage of litigation, with discovery ongoing and not yet closed.

Issue

Whether the court should transfer this diversity products liability action from the District of Columbia to the District of Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Specifically, the question was whether the case could have been brought in Massachusetts and whether the private and public interest factors favored transfer despite the plaintiffs' choice of forum.

Rule

When venue is proper, a district court may transfer a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to another district where the action could have been brought if transfer serves the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. The moving party must show both that the transferee district is one where the case originally could have been filed and that the balance of private and public interest factors favors transfer. Relevant private interests include the plaintiff's choice of forum, the defendant's choice of forum, where the claim arose, the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, and access to sources of proof; relevant public interests include the transferee court's familiarity with governing law, relative docket congestion, and the local interest in deciding local controversies at home.

🔒

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 Bell and her spouse sued Redwood Therapeutics in federal court in the District of Columbia on diversity grounds, alleging injuries from a prenatal prescription drug. Nora, her mother, the prescribing doctor, the dispensing pharmacy, and all relevant medical and pharmacy records are in Massachusetts, while Redwood is incorporated in Indiana and does business nationwide. Redwood moves early in the case to transfer to the District of Massachusetts.

How should the court most likely rule on the transfer motion?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the movant must show both that the case could have been brought in the transferee district and that convenience and the interest of justice favor transfer. Where the plaintiffs, key nonparty witnesses, operative facts, and records are all centered in Massachusetts, and the motion is made early, transfer is appropriate even though the original venue is proper. The plaintiff's choice receives reduced weight when the chosen forum has no meaningful ties to the controversy. (Derived from MacMunn v. Eli Lilly & Co. (n.d.).)