Opinion ID: 731322
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Propriety of the Section 1404(a) Transfer

Text: 52 Besides arguing that the district court's transfer to itself was without authority by virtue of section 1407, Lexecon also argues that it was improper under section 1404(a). Lexecon argues that any incremental gain in efficiency was at its expense, and that it was prejudiced by being dragged from Chicago, Illinois, to Arizona and forced to appear before Judge Roll, who was unfamiliar with MDL 834 and who improperly proceeded to dismantle its case. We disagree. 53 Lexecon, to put it gently, was no stranger to the District of Arizona; its participation in MDL 834 precludes any such claim. Moreover, Judge Roll had become quite familiar with the case by the time of his decision to transfer the trial of the defamation claim to his own district. Finally, Judge Roll's dismissal of most of Lexecon's claims is not a ground for showing prejudice. 54 After a careful examination of the record and consideration of the arguments, we find no reason to question the district court's authority to try Lexecon's defamation claim in the District of Arizona, or the fairness of doing so.