## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 13

- 1114 I N RE : D ANIEL H U DS ON, P etitio ner .

Pe tition fo r a W rito f M andamustothe United S t ates Di strictC our tfo r the Central D istricto f Illino is. No . 2:1 2-cv-02 14 0-HAB-DGB

—H aro ld A . Bak er, Judge
.
S UB MI TT ED J AN UA RY 18, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 5, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, R IPPLE, an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Da ni elHudso n fil ed s ui t i n a fede ral d istri ct cou rt i n Il li nois un d er the F e d e r al Tort Clai m s Act, char gi ng tha t m edi calper sonnelat a f edera l pri son i n K ansas i n w hi ch he had b ee n i ncarc er ate d had negl i gentl y f ai l ed to di agno se a bl oo d c lot in hi s l eg and that a s a r esul t he had experi enced se ri ous he al th probl em s. The gov er nm ent m ove d t o tr ansfer the ca se t o the fe de r a l di s t r i c tco ur ti n Ka ns a s p ur s ua ntt o 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1404 (a), on th e groun d that the p r in c ipal w itness es are i n K ansas , notI llin ois , a nd al so that the Di str i ct o f K ansas has a li gh ter ca sel oad perj ud ge than the Centra l2 N o. 13

- 1114 Di st r i cto fI l l i no is. T he di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d the mot i o n. H u d son has peti ti oned us f orm andam us, ar gui ng tha t the c ase sho uld re m ain i n I l l i noi s be cause he l i ves here , as d o h is c u rre n t t re at in g p h ys i c i a n s , w h o h e s ay s w ill testify abou t his cu rrent h ealth p roblem s and also testify that thos e pr obl em s s tem fro m the fa i l ure to diagnose his blood clot. Rel a t iv e s of his in I ll inois w il l also testify to hi s co nt inu i nghe al thpr o bl ems. Acco r di ngt o the p lai nt iff, seven of th e po ten tial w itness es (both plaintiff a n d d e f e n s e wi t n e s s e s ) a r e i n Ka n s a s ; th r e e a r e i n t he ad j ac en t s ta t e o fM iss ou ri (an d tw o of t h em are on ly two mil es fr o m the b o r derb etwee n the t wo s ta te s); five (th re e t re at in g p h ys icia n s p lu s t w o re lat ive s) a re in I l l i noi s; and two ar e i n Cal i f or ni a. The g r an t o fthe g o ve r nm en t’ s m o ti o n t o t r an sferthe case was an unapp eal abl e i nter l ocutoryo rder, but an unapp eal abl e o rdercan i n exception al ci rcum sta nces be review ed by a m an d am us p roceed ing. T he grant of a m oti on t o t ra nsf eri s a n appeal i ng ca nd i date f orsuch re vi e w . Se e, e.g ., Va n D use n v. Ba rrack, 37 6 U.S

. 61 2, 61 5 n . 3 (19 64 ); In re A pple, Inc. , 602 F.3d 909 , 9 1 2 ( 8 t h Cir. 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m ); In reVol ks wag e n o f Am e r i ca, Inc . , 54 5 F. 3d 304, 30 9 ( 5th C i r. 20 08) ( en banc)

. A s we expl ai ned i n H icks v . D u ck w orth , 856 F.2d 93 4, 93 5 (7 th C ir. 19 88 ), “it i s di ffi c ul tt o s e e h o w s uc h a n e r r o r c o ul d b e c o r r e cted othe rwis e. The di str i ct c ourtto wh i ch the case was tr ansf er r ed woul d b e m o stl i k el y t o d i smi ss i t, s o tha t [ th e ca se ] woul d wande r b etwee n ci rcu it s l i k e th e Anci en t M ar i ner” ( ci tat i on o m i tt ed )

. The di sm i ssa l co uld be ap p ea led , bu t w h at if th e c ou rtof ap p ea ls for th e c irc u itN o. 13

- 1114 3 to w hi ch the case had been t ra nsfer re d up hel d the di sm iss al? T h e d oc tr in e o f law of th e c a s e p ro vid es a p os sib le buti nc o m pl et e an swe r . I n C h ristia nso n v . Co lt Ind ustries O pera ting C o rp . , 48 6 U.S

. 80 0 ( 1988 ) , the Fe d er al Ci rcui t, rul i ngtha ti tl a c k e d j ur i s di c t i o n o v e ra c a s e , h a d t r a nsferred it to this court

— and w e ha d transfer re d i t ba ck, in sis tin g t h at th e F ed er al C irc u it w as w ro n g: th at it d id h ave j urisd ic t ion
. Th e Fed eral Circu it w as no t pe rsuaded, but i t fel t it had no prac ti calchoi ce b ut to dec i de th e m er i ts , l es t t he c as e co nt i nue b o unc i ng between the tw o ci rcui ts. The S up re m e Cou rt r u l ed that the F ed er al C irc uithad bee n ri ght that i t di dn ’ t hav e j uri sdic tion , a nd so the Court vacat ed the Feder al C irc u it’s m er its d ec isio n . Th e C o u rtrem ar ke d in pas singtha t o ur c o ur t’ s er r o ne o us j ur i sdi ct i o na l r ul i ng h ad n ev er th ele ss be en th e l a w o ft h e ca se . Id

. at81 6. Yet it a d d ed th at sin c e la w of th e c as e, u n like res ju d ica ta , i s not a r i gi d bar to re vi si ting a p riorr uling, the Feder al C ircuit had n’t bee n com p ell ed to abide by ou r court’s j uri sdic ti onalr uling. S ee id

. a t 81 7. “ A co ur t ha s th e p o w e r t o re vis it p rior d ec isio n s o f its ow n or of a co or d in at e c ou rtin a n y c irc u m s t a n c e, alt h ou gh as a ru le cour ts shoul d be l oath to do s o i n th e absence o fextr aor d in ar y circ u m st an c es su c h as w h er e th e init ia l d ec isi on was ‘ cl ear l y e rr oneo us and w oul d w or k a m ani f est i nj usti ce. ’ ” Id

. S o l aw o fthe case is nota com ple te sol ution t o the pr obl em we disc ussed i n the H i cks cas e (for w h at w ou ld h av e ha p p en ed h ad th e Fe d e r a l C irc u it re tr ansfer re d the Chr i s t i ans on cas e t o us?) , and so m anda-4 N o. 13

- 1114

m us r em ai ns a potenti al l y im p or tant re m edy i n tr ansfer case s. Befo re the change ofve nue sta tute w as enacte d, 28 U .S.C . § 14 04 (a), a d efe n d a n t ’ s on ly re c ou rs e if su ed in an i nconveni ent for um had bee n the com m on l aw d octrine of f

or um non conve ni e ns . And “ a defen dan t i nvok i ng f

or um no n c onve ni e ns o rdi nari l y b ear s a heav y burden i n opposi ng the pl ai nti ff’ s cho sen f or um . ” Sin o ch em Int ’ l Co. v. M al ays i a Int ’ l Sh ippi ng Corp
. , 54 9 U.S

. 42 2, 43 0 ( 2007 ) ; see al so G ulf O il C o rp. v. G ilbert, 33 0 U.S

. 50 1, 5 0 8 (19 47 ); In reF a c t o rV IIIo rIX Co n c e n t r a t eBl ood Prod uc t s Li t igat i on , 48 4 F
. 3d 951, 95 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07); I n re Vo lkswag en of Am er ica, Inc. , sup ra , 5 45 F
. 3d at3 14 n. 1 0. The re as on for t h e h ea vy bu rd en is th at if t h e d oc tr in e is succes sfull y i nvoke d, the r esul t i s no t a t ra nsf erto anothe r cour t but a dism i ssa l, and the pla i nti ffw ill not be abl e t o re fi l e hi s ca se i n any othe r cour t i ft he st atute o fl i m ita tio n s h as ru n . N orwo od v. Kirkpatr ick, 349 U
. S. 29 , 31 (1 95 5); Chang v. Baxt e rHe al t hc ar eCorp. , 59 9 F
. 3d 728, 73 6-3 7 (7 t h C i r . 2 01 0); U
. S. O
. Corp. v. M izuho Hol di ng Co. , 547 F.3d 74 9, 75 2-5 3 (7 th C ir. 20 0 8 )

. T h e d oc tr in e is th us “ qui te di ff er en t f r o m S ec ti on 14 04 ( a)

. Tha t do ct r i ne i nv o l ve s th e di smi ss al o f a ca se be ca us e th e fo r um chose n by the pl ai nti ffi s s o com ple tel y i n appropri ate and i nconveni ent that it is b ett erto st op the l i ti gat i on in th e p lac e w h er e b ro u gh t a n d letit st ar t a l l ov er ag ain so m ewhe r e el se . I t i s qui te na tu r al l y s ubj ec t to ca r eful l i m i ta ti o n f or it noto nl y de ni es the pl aint i ffthe gen erall y accord ed privile g e of bringing an action w he re he c ho o se s, b utmake s it p ossibl e f o r hi m t o l o se o utN o. 13

- 1114 5

com ple tel y, thr ough the r unning o fthe sta tute ofl i m i tati ons i n the f or um fi nal l y deem ed appropri ate
. S ecti on 1404 ( a) avo i d s th is l att erdanger

. I ts w or ds shoul d be consid er ed f orwh at they say, notwith pr eco ncei ved lim i tat i ons deri ved fro m the f or um non c onveni ens doctr i ne. ” N orwo od v. Kirkpatr ick, sup ra , 34 9 U. S

. a t 31 , quo ting A ll States Fre ight, Inc. v. M oda re ll i, 19 6 F
. 2d 1010 , 10 11 ( 3d Cir

. 19 52)

. A nd so the change ofve nue sta tute has di s pl a c e d f

or um no n c onve ni e ns w h en th e q u e s t ion is th e su per i o r c o nv en i en ce o fl i ti g at i nga c as e in o ne fede ral d istri ct cou rt rathe r than anoth er. N ot onl y i s the sho w i ng o fi nconveni ence necessa r y t o j us ti fy a tran sf erthe r efo r e l es s ex ac tingtha n the showing re quir ed to o btai n a di sm i ssa l on gr ounds of f or um no n c onve ni e ns , N o rw o o d v . Kirkpa trick, s up ra , 3 49 U .S. at 3 1-3 2; E m ployers M utual Casualty Co . v . Ba rt il e R oofs, Inc. , 618 F.3d 11 53 , 116 7 n . 13 (1 0t h C ir. 20 10 ); C o ffey v. Van D or n Ir on Works , 796 F. 2d 217, 219- 20 and n . 3 (7th C ir. 19 86 ); In re Vo lkswag en of Am er ica, Inc. , sup ra , 54 5 F
. 3d at 31 3- 14 a nd n. 8 ; b uta n a ppl i ca ntf o r mandamus has a n uph i l l fi ght whateverthe bas is fo r the a pp l i cati o n. Be ca us e o fthe de l aytha t a g r an t o fmand am us engender s a nd the burden on an appel l ate co urt of h av in g t o c on sid er w h et h er to gra n t it, th e w r it m ay , i n th e tr an sferco ntext a s i n other conte xts, pro perl y b e used to r escind a tr ansfero nl y i fthe ap p li cant c an sh o w th atthe t r an sfero r deri s a “v i o l at i o n o fa c l ea r a nd in d i s p u t a b le leg al rig h t, or, at th e v er y lea st, [i s] p at en tly er ro neous. ” In re R ho n e- P oulenc R orer, Inc. , 51 F. 3d 1293 , 129 5 (7 th Ci r. 19 95) ; se e a l so C hen ey v . U .S. D istrict C o urt, 54 2 U .S. 36 7, 38 1 (2 00 4); In reLi m i tN one, LL C, 55 1 F
. 3d 572,6 N o. 13

- 1114 57 5 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); In reAt l ant i c M ar i neCons t r uc t i on Co. , 70 1 F .3d 73 6, 73 8 (5 th C ir. 20 12 ). A l though the questi on o ftr an sfe r i n thi s ca se i s a c l o s e o n e , w e c a n n o ts a y th a tth e d i s t r i c t j u d g e c o mm i tte d a cl earer ro r i n hol ding th at the defendants ha d ma de the r e qu i r e d s ho wi ng : Mo r e tha n t wo - thi r ds of t h e p ot en tia l w itn es se s (1 2 o u t o f17 ) are eit h er in K an sa s, j u st ac ro ss th e b or d er in M iss ou ri, else w h er e in M i sso uri, o r i n Cal i f or ni a, wh i ch is cl ose r to K ansas than it is t o Illino i s . T h e D ist ric t o f K an sa s h as as w e s aid a l i ghtercas el oad p er judge than the Centr alDis tr i ct o f I l l i noi s. M ostof the m edi calr eco rds r el ati ng to the case a r e i n Ka n s a s . An d i ft r i a l i n Ka n s a s we r e s p l i ti n t wo ( “bi furcat ed”)

— a l i a b i l i t y t r i a l a n d ( i fn e c e s s a r y ) a d a mag es tr i al

— and the pla i nti ff l ost the l i abi l i ty tr i al, h is wi t n e s s e s , wh o s e t e s t i mo n y wo u l d r e l a t e t o th e e xt en t and persi ste nce o fhi s i nj uri es ra ther than to the quali ty of th e m ed ica l tre at m e n t t h at h e re c eiv ed in K an sa s, w ou ld n ot tes ti fy a nyw here

. The va ri etyo fr el evantco nsi derati o ns c ouns el s defer en ce t o the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r ul i ng . Se e Res e ar ch Aut om at i on, Inc . v. Sc hrade r - Bri dgepor tInt ’ l, Inc ., 626 F. 3d 973, 97 7- 78 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) , and case s ci ted the re . I n o ur a g e of adv an ce d e l ec tr o ni c co m m uni ca ti o n, i ncl ud i ng hi gh- quali ty vi deoc onfer enci ng, change s o f venue m oti vate d by co ncer ns with t ra veli ncon ve n i ence shoul d be few er t h an in the past. Today docum ents can be s canned and tra nsm i tte d by e m ai l ; w i tness es can be depo se d, e xa m i ne d, and c r o ss - ex ami ne d r emot el y a nd th e i r v i d e o t a p e d t e s t i mo n y s h o wn a t t r i a l

. B u tt he pl aint i ffdo es no t ar gu e aga i ns t th e tr an sfero n the g r o und tha t th e el ec tr o ni c r ev o l ut i o n h as e r as ed th eN o. 13

- 1114 7 advantage s that the Kan sas venue w oul d once undoubtedl y hav e had under the f acts o fthi s ca se. P E T I T I ON D ENI ED .

3- 5- 13