Change of Venue (28 U.S.C. § 1404)
“For the convenience of parties 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 or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”
Standard
Courts balance private and public interest factors:
Private Interest Factors
- Access to sources of proof; location of evidence
- Compulsory process to secure unwilling witnesses
- Cost of attending for willing witnesses
- All practical problems making trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive
Public Interest Factors
- Court congestion
- Local interest in having localized controversies decided at home
- Familiarity of the forum with applicable state law (Erie implications)
- Unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947): articulated the forum non conveniens factors later codified in § 1404. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981): plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less deference when plaintiff is foreign and the chosen forum has little connection to the controversy; possibility of less favorable law in the alternative forum does not alone bar dismissal.
Forum Selection Clauses
Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court (2013): When parties have contractually agreed to venue in a particular district, that clause should receive controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases — the private interest factors receive no weight (party who selected different forum bears burden to show public-interest factors overwhelmingly favor transfer).
Compared to Dismissal for Forum Non Conveniens
§ 1404 covers transfers to another U.S. federal district. Dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds is used when the more appropriate forum is in a foreign country.