Opinion ID: 3027229
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The district court of a district in which

Text: is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought. Distinctions between §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a) have to do with discretion, jurisdiction, and choice of law. Section 1404(a) transfers are discretionary determinations made for the convenience of the parties and presuppose that the court has jurisdiction and that the case has been brought in the correct forum. Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 878 (3d Cir. 1995); 17A Moore’s Federal Practice, § 111.02 (Matthew Bender 3d ed. 2006). Faced with a choice-of-law question, federal courts in the district to which the case has been 9 transferred under § 1404(a) must apply the law of the transferor state. See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 639 (1964) (for defendant-initiated § 1404(a) transfers); Ferens, 494 U.S. at 527–28 (extending the Van Dusen rule to all § 1404(a) transfers, whether initiated by plaintiff or defendant). Section 1406(a) comes into play where plaintiffs file suit in an improper forum. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 878; Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, § 111.02. In those instances, district courts are required either to dismiss or transfer to a proper forum. Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 465–66 (1962) (emphasizing that federal district courts may transfer—rather than dismiss—cases that plaintiffs initially brought in an improper forum, regardless whether they otherwise have personal jurisdiction). When cases have been dismissed for improper venue, plaintiffs in those cases must file anew in a proper forum. See Moore’s Fed. Practice, supra, § 111.03. No doubt the filing date in the new forum governs for limitations purposes. When cases have been transferred for improper venue, transferee courts generally apply the substantive law they would have applied had the action been brought there initially. See Moore’s Fed. Practice, supra, §§ 111.02[2][c], 111.38 (citing cases); Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, 14D Federal Practice & Procedure: Jurisdiction 3d § 3827 at 581 n.22 (West 2007) (same). However, there is a question whether a transferee court should count the date of transfer as the date of initial filing under its forum’s statute of limitations to bar a claim merely because that statute has run by 10 the time of the transfer.