Summary of PKWare v. Meade, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of WI (2000) [part II]
Cause of action: The following is a cause of action for change of venue by DF in previous case in this series.
Procedural History: District Ct. denied motion to change venue for ASI, but held true its throwing out charge vs. Meade.
Facts: (see previous case) PL doesn’t dispute the action might have been brought in the Southern District of OH.
Issue(s): Under federal rules of civil procedure, may the district court grant an alternative motion to transfer when all state claims were held to be well within reach of suit in the same court, and when the one complaint against co-DF
Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: In order to justify a transfer, DF’s must show that So. District is clearly a more convenient forum, and they should do this by evaluating public (judicial economy, expeditious administration of justice) and private interest (PL’s choice of forum, situs of operative events, convenience of parties based on their residences) factors.
PL’s choice of forum is given weight, and since DF’s lived there. Material events took place in both judicial districts.Breach of K claims are split between districts, but the intellectual property infringement claim cannot be ascertained as to which district it occurred in (internet sales).
PL said it had 300 witnesses who could testify, but DF gave no indication it would not have anyone testifying either. Convenience, another issue, is not one, as the distance DF would have to travel is not great. Similarly, issue of public interest considerations sways again in favor of the district who put so much time into a case as to see it now. Also, an OH court may have a more difficult time applying WI law then the WI court itself.
Rule: 28 U.S.C. §1404: (a) 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.
(b) Upon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be transferred, in the discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any other division in the same district. Transfer of proceedings in rem brought by or on behalf of the United States may be transferred under this section without the consent of the United States where all other parties request transfer. (more subsections do follow)
Holding: No. DF’s motion to dismiss for lack of PJ and lack of venue are denied, except that DF Meade’s motion to dismiss PL’s claim of patent infringement is granted.