Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Tanzymore v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiversity JurisdictionTransfer of Venue28 U.S.C. § 140428 U.S.C. § 1332(c)diversity jurisdictioncorporate citizenshipprincipal place of business

Facts

This court previously dismissed the action on the ground that the plaintiff was at best a resident of Pennsylvania and might in fact be a citizen of no state, defeating diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff then sought to transfer the case to the District of Delaware, where Bethlehem Steel was incorporated, arguing that he was probably a citizen of Pennsylvania and could therefore sue the defendant there. Bethlehem Steel responded that it was a citizen both of Delaware, its state of incorporation, and Pennsylvania, where it had its principal place of business within this district. The plaintiff also remained within this district for pressing medical reasons, and the witnesses and records were presently located there.

Issue

Whether the court could transfer the action to the District of Delaware under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 after dismissing for lack of diversity jurisdiction. More specifically, whether Delaware was a district where the action might have been brought and whether transfer would serve convenience and the interest of justice.

Rule

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, a district court may transfer a civil action only to another district where it might have been brought and only when transfer serves the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), a corporation is deemed a citizen both of the state by which it has been incorporated and of the state where it has its principal place of business, so diversity is lacking if the plaintiff is a citizen of either of those states.

🔒

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.

Lena Ortiz, a citizen of Ohio, filed a diversity action in federal court in Cleveland against Iron Vale Components, a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Ohio. After the court questioned subject-matter jurisdiction, Lena asked to transfer the case to the federal district court in Delaware under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

What is the strongest reason the transfer request should be denied?

Explanation. Section 1404 permits transfer only to a district where the action might have been brought. Under the majority opinion’s reading of § 1332(c), a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business. Because Iron Vale Components is a citizen of both Delaware and Ohio, an Ohio plaintiff lacks complete diversity even in Delaware. Thus Delaware is not a district where the action might have been brought. (Derived from Tanzymore v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (n.d.).)