Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Van Dusen v. Barrack

Supreme Court of the United States · 1964 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureVenueTransfer of VenueChoice of LawDiversity Jurisdiction§ 1404(a)transfer of venuechange of venue

Facts

After a commercial airliner crashed into Boston Harbor, more than 150 personal injury and wrongful death suits were filed, including over 100 in Massachusetts and more than 45 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case involves 40 wrongful death actions filed in Pennsylvania by personal representatives of crash victims, who were qualified to sue under Pennsylvania law. Defendants sought transfer to Massachusetts because most witnesses were allegedly there and many related actions were pending there. Plaintiffs had not qualified under Massachusetts law as representatives, and the lower courts assumed transfer might also affect what state law governed the actions.

Issue

First, does § 1404(a)'s limitation allowing transfer only to a district where the action "might have been brought" require that plaintiffs have been qualified to sue under the transferee state's law at the time suit was filed? Second, when a defendant obtains a § 1404(a) transfer in a diversity case, does the transferee court apply its own state's law or the state law that the transferor court would have applied?

Rule

For purposes of § 1404(a), the phrase "where it might have been brought" is determined by federal venue statutes and federal jurisdictional requirements, not by the transferee state's rules on a fiduciary's capacity to sue. In a case such as this, where defendants seek transfer under § 1404(a), the transferee district court must apply the same state law, including the transferor state's choice-of-law rules, that would have been applied had there been no transfer; with respect to state law, transfer should generally be only a change of courtrooms. Rule 17(b) must be interpreted consistently so that, after such a transfer, capacity to sue is governed by the law of the transferor state.

🔒

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.

Nadia Flores, an Arizona citizen, sues Lakeview Industrial Tools, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation, in the federal district court in New Mexico based on diversity after a warehouse accident in Nevada. Venue and personal jurisdiction are proper in both New Mexico and Nevada, and the defendant successfully moves under § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the District of Nevada because most witnesses and documents are in Reno.

After transfer, which law should the Nevada federal court apply to outcome-determinative state-law issues?

Explanation. When a defendant obtains a § 1404(a) transfer in a diversity case such as this, the transferee court must apply the same state law, including the transferor state's choice-of-law rules, that the transferor court would have applied. The transfer is generally only a change of courtrooms with respect to state-law rights; it is not a device for the defendant to obtain more favorable substantive law.