Top Law Schools

Let's say that a venue is proper under 1391 and the D wants to transfer to a venue. There are other D's who consent and "join" in this.

Doesn't that mean that the transferee venue must have personal jurisdiction over ALL defendants and must be a proper venue?

Did a golden gate hypo and there is nothing at all in the "A+" answer about transferee venue having PJ over defendants.

Please clarify!! Much appreciated

IPlaw09 wrote:Let's say that a venue is proper under 1391 and the D wants to transfer to a venue. There are other D's who consent and "join" in this.

Doesn't that mean that the transferee venue must have personal jurisdiction over ALL defendants and must be a proper venue?

Did a golden gate hypo and there is nothing at all in the "A+" answer about transferee venue having PJ over defendants.

Please clarify!! Much appreciated

Yes. Three things always needed: PJ, SMJ, and venue. To transfer, the venue has to be somewhere where the suit could have been originally filed. That implies you could exercise PJ in that particular forum/venue (e.g., sufficient minimum contacts = PJ, you get in with DJ for SMJ, and you establish the venue was proper and you could have originally brought the action there instead of wherever else it was).

What a D can't do is waive requirements like PJ to get into a venue. That's not proper, and it'd never fly. The Freer Lectures on Venue are great with this and he offers some awesome hypos.

rnoodles22 wrote:

IPlaw09 wrote:Let's say that a venue is proper under 1391 and the D wants to transfer to a venue. There are other D's who consent and "join" in this.

Doesn't that mean that the transferee venue must have personal jurisdiction over ALL defendants and must be a proper venue?

Did a golden gate hypo and there is nothing at all in the "A+" answer about transferee venue having PJ over defendants.

Please clarify!! Much appreciated

Yes. Three things always needed: PJ, SMJ, and venue. To transfer, the venue has to be somewhere where the suit could have been originally filed. That implies you could exercise PJ in that particular forum/venue (e.g., sufficient minimum contacts = PJ, you get in with DJ for SMJ, and you establish the venue was proper and you could have originally brought the action there instead of wherever else it was).

What a D can't do is waive requirements like PJ to get into a venue. That's not proper, and it'd never fly. The Freer Lectures on Venue are great with this and he offers some awesome hypos.

For that last point, note that a defendant can waive PJ concerns for forum non conveniens, which is sort of like a transfer of venue.

february1 wrote:

rnoodles22 wrote:

IPlaw09 wrote:Let's say that a venue is proper under 1391 and the D wants to transfer to a venue. There are other D's who consent and "join" in this.

Doesn't that mean that the transferee venue must have personal jurisdiction over ALL defendants and must be a proper venue?

Did a golden gate hypo and there is nothing at all in the "A+" answer about transferee venue having PJ over defendants.

Please clarify!! Much appreciated

Yes. Three things always needed: PJ, SMJ, and venue. To transfer, the venue has to be somewhere where the suit could have been originally filed. That implies you could exercise PJ in that particular forum/venue (e.g., sufficient minimum contacts = PJ, you get in with DJ for SMJ, and you establish the venue was proper and you could have originally brought the action there instead of wherever else it was).

What a D can't do is waive requirements like PJ to get into a venue. That's not proper, and it'd never fly. The Freer Lectures on Venue are great with this and he offers some awesome hypos.

For that last point, note that a defendant can waive PJ concerns for forum non conveniens, which is sort of like a transfer of venue.

Yes, exactly. I think it's said in the Freer vid, but they can do that b/c FNC transfers are to foreign judicial systems. It's not really a transfer, b/c you can only transfer within the same judicial system. So b/c the US and, say, Scottish judicial systems aren't the same, you dismiss under FNC w/out prejudice to the P. The P can then bring suit in Scotland. Pursuant to that, courts sometimes attach conditions to FNC dismissals like what february said. One of those could be a D's waiving of PJ, another could D's waiving of some type of defenses, etc.