Opinion ID: 470080
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Court's Sua Sponte Motion.

Text: 6 The Costlows claim that the district court lacked authority to decide the issue of venue on its own motion. They properly note that section 1391's venue requirements are not a qualification upon the power of the court to adjudicate, but [rather] a limitation designed for convenience of litigants, and, as such, may be waived by them. Olberding v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 1953, 346 U.S. 338, 340, 74 S.Ct. 83, 85, 98 L.Ed. 39. Leroy v. Great Western Corp., 1979, 443 U.S. 173, 180, 99 S.Ct. 2710, 2714-15, 61 L.Ed.2d 464. A defendant must object to venue by motion or in his answer to the complaint or else his objection is waived. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h); see Libby, McNeill & Libby v. City National Bank, 9 Cir., 1978, 592 F.2d 504, 510. The Costlows claim that defendants have waived any objection to venue in Washington because they have so far failed to assert this defense. Accordingly, the Costlows reason, the court is barred from considering the issue on its own motion or otherwise. See Concession Consultants, Inc. v. Mirisch, 2 Cir., 1966, 355 F.2d 369, 371 (district court may not raise issue of improper venue sua sponte where defendants have waived their objection to venue); cf. Wagner v. Fawcett Publications, Inc., 7 Cir., 1962, 307 F.2d 409, 412 (district court had no right to apply statute of limitations sua sponte where defendants had waived that defense). 7 The Costlows' argument fails by its very terms. The defendants in this case have not filed a responsive pleading to the Costlows' complaint and their time to do so has not yet expired. They have not, therefore, waived their right to object to the action's improper venue in Washington. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h). 8 In the absence of a waiver, we can find no reason to hold that the district court erred by raising the issue of defective venue on its own motion. The defendants' right to waive the issue was protected by their notification that the court had the issue under submission. If the defendants had preferred that the case proceed to trial in Washington, they could have objected at this point and thus prevented the court from dismissing the action. See Concession Consultants, 355 F.2d at 371. The court's handling of the improper venue issue in this case is analogous to the long-approved practice of permitting a court to transfer a case sua sponte under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a), so long as the parties are first given the opportunity to present their views on the issue. See, e.g., Starnes v. McGuire, D.C.Cir., 1974, 512 F.2d 918, 934; Hite v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines, E.D.Mich., 1982, 551 F.Supp. 390, 393. Given the defendants failure to waive their objection when given the opportunity to do so, we hold that the district court had the authority to raise the issue of defective venue on its own motion. 9