Also known as: where the action might have been brought · venue transfer · 28 USC 1404
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory precondition in federal venue law that limits transfer to a district possessing subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and proper venue.
NebulaSoft sued TitanCloud in a Midwestern federal court. TitanCloud moved to transfer to the Northern District of California. The court granted the motion after confirming that the California district had subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction over TitanCloud, and proper venue because nearly all witnesses and documents were located there.
Albert Ferens filed suit in Pennsylvania after losing his hand in a combine harvester. He later moved to transfer the case to Mississippi. The Supreme Court held that the transferee court must apply the choice-of-law rules of the original forum because the Mississippi district was one where the action might have been brought.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Stewart Organization sued Ricoh in Alabama despite a contractual clause designating Manhattan as the forum. Ricoh moved to transfer under section 1404(a). The Court ruled that the statute governs the motion and that Manhattan was a district where the action might have been brought because the clause supplied consent.
Survivors of a Boston plane crash sued in Pennsylvania. The airline moved to transfer to Massachusetts. The Court confirmed that Massachusetts was a district where the actions might have been brought because the crash occurred there and the airline was subject to jurisdiction there.
Burger King sued Rudzewicz in Florida for breach of a franchise agreement. Rudzewicz moved to transfer to Michigan. The Court noted that Michigan was a district where the action might have been brought because Rudzewicz had sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction there.
A seaman injured on a vessel sued in Louisiana. The defendant moved to transfer to Texas. The Court observed that Texas was a district where the action might have been brought because the injury occurred in Texas waters and the defendant conducted substantial business there.
The court must confirm that the transferee district has subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and proper venue under the general venue statute. This threshold ensures the plaintiff could have filed there originally.
Supporting sources
No. The plaintiff's choice receives deference but yields when convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice strongly favor the transferee district that could have hosted the original filing.
Supporting sources
Yes. The statute expressly permits transfer to any district to which all parties have consented even if that district would not independently satisfy the might-have-been-brought test.
Supporting sources
The requirement preserves the original forum's choice-of-law rules in the transferee court. This rule prevents plaintiffs from using transfer to obtain more favorable substantive law.
Supporting sources
…and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought"). This provision embodies in an expanded version the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens , under which a court in appropriate circumstances may decline to exercise its…