15. How should the court rule on the illustrator's motion to transfer venue?

Venue refers to the court where a cause of action is adjudicated. In federal cases, venue is controlled by 28 U.S.C. §1391.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in any federal district court where:

(i) any defendant resides, as long as all defendants reside in the same state; OR

(ii) where a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

A third scenario for venue exists, which applies only if the first two avenues are not available:

(iii) «if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction» (emphasis added).

Personal jurisdiction exists over a defendant who is present within the forum state when he is served with process.

28 U.S.C. §1404(a) authorizes court-to-court transfers of federal cases, from one federal district to another, for the convenience of parties and witnesses. A district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where the action might have been brought, or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. However, this transfer provision only applies when the initial venue was proper. If an action is filed by the plaintiff in a district that is not a proper venue, the court may not use §1404(a) as authority for transferring to a district where venue would be proper.

Section 1404(a) allows transfer to another district where the action «might have been brought» or «to which all parties have consented,» even though venue has been properly laid in the court before which the motion to transfer is made. The policy behind section 1404 is that while venue may be correct, the parties or the witnesses might be greatly inconvenienced by the trial in the original forum. By balancing the relative convenience offered by the alternative forums, the original court has the discretion to transfer the action to a court in which the action «might have been brought» in conformity with the rules governing: (i) subject-matter jurisdiction; (ii) in personam jurisdiction over the defendant; and (iii) venue.

Another alternative is transferring to a court to which all parties have consented (even if venue ordinarily would not be proper there). If the superior forum is in another judicial system, the court may dismiss or stay the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

A «forum-selection clause» is when parties to a contract designate the forum in which any litigation must occur. When a party to a contract with a forum-selection clause later sues another party to that contract in a federal court where venue is proper, but the «wrong» venue under the clause, defendants do not generally have the right to use § 1406(a) to demand a dismissal or transfer to the forum specified by the clause. However, § 1404 allows a defendant who wishes to enforce the forum-selection clause to ask the court to transfer the case for convenience.

In Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a review of a forum-selection clause is a discretionary analysis in which the party seeking to avoid the clause has the burden to show that public interest factors overwhelmingly disfavor transferring over enforcing the clause.

The jurisdiction of federal courts is concurrent with state courts. This means that a particular controversy that is litigable in federal court may also be brought in state court. Where jurisdiction is concurrent, the plaintiff makes the initial decision whether to use state or federal court by filing his case. The defendant may then choose to remove or remain under the state court's jurisdiction.

When determining whether to do an Erie analysis, the threshold question is whether there is a controlling Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) or federal statute. If any federal law controls (is «on point»), there is no Erie problem. However, in the absence of a controlling federal statute or Rule, the question becomes whether the issue at hand is substantive or procedural.

D is correct. The court should consider the motion because a federal court may weigh public interest factors when deciding a motion to transfer when the transaction involved included a forum selection clause. Under the Atlantic Marine Construction Co. case, the calligrapher, who has acted «against» the direction of the forum-selection clause, has the burden of establishing that public interest factors for keeping the case in State A overwhelmingly outweigh the parties' contractual choice to adjudicate lawsuits in State C.

A is incorrect. The governing law on the issue of whether the court may grant the transfer is the federal transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. §1404, which gives federal courts discretionary power to grant transfer motions and is applicable even in diversity actions, such as this case. The fact that State A law does not allow forum-selection clauses is inapplicable because the federal statute is on point.

B is incorrect. This is a misstatement of the law. There is no federal law supporting the enforceability of all forum selection clauses. However, the court should still consider the motion because it has the discretion to transfer the case for convenience if it chooses to do so.

C is incorrect. The contractual provision at issue is not a choice-of-law provision because it deals with where the lawsuit should be adjudicated, not which state's substantive law applies.