Main Content
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman
The previous two cases explored the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We now turn to transfers from one federal district court to another.
There are four questions that motions to transfer, or in the alternative to dismiss, implicate:
(1) Must the federal district court transfer or dismiss? The answer here is easy to state: A federal district court must transfer or dismiss if venue is improper or if it cannot exercise jurisdiction over the person/property (either one). That is what the summary of this case establishes.
(2) May the federal court transfer, or must it dismiss? This answer depends on whether another federal district exists in which venue is proper and jurisdiction over the person/property is present. If so, the federal court may transfer. If not, it cannot do so; rather, it must dismiss.
(3) If the federal court need not transfer (#1 is "no"), but may transfer (#2 is "yes"), should it transfer? This answer here is easy to state: apply the forum non conveniens analysis from Gilbert and Piper.
(4) If the federal court transfers, what consequences are there for the applicable law? The answer here is not easy to state. You need the Greiner Happy Court rule (explained below).
You also need to understand how the presence of a forum selection clause alters the answers to questions (3) and (4).
As just suggested, this case, Goldlawr, concerns question (1).
This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.