Ferens v. John Deere Co.
494 U.S. 516 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a diversity action, when a case is transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the transferee court must apply the choice-of-law rules of the transferor court, regardless of which party initiated the transfer.
Facts:
- Albert Ferens, a Pennsylvania resident, was injured on his Pennsylvania farm by a combine harvester manufactured by Deere & Company.
- Ferens failed to file a personal injury tort claim within Pennsylvania's two-year statute of limitations.
- The Ferenses filed a suit in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging contract and warranty claims, which had a longer statute of limitations.
- To pursue the time-barred tort claim, the Ferenses also filed a separate diversity suit against Deere in a federal court in Mississippi.
- The Ferenses chose Mississippi because its choice-of-law rules would apply Pennsylvania substantive law to the tort claim but Mississippi's own longer, six-year statute of limitations.
- Immediately after filing in Mississippi, the Ferenses moved under § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the federal court in Pennsylvania, arguing it was a more convenient forum.
Procedural Posture:
- The Ferenses filed a tort suit against Deere in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
- The Ferenses, as plaintiffs, moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where their separate warranty action was pending.
- The U.S. District Court in Mississippi granted the transfer motion.
- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed the transferred tort action, ruling that Pennsylvania's statute of limitations applied because the plaintiffs had initiated the transfer.
- The Ferenses (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals' initial decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of another case.
- On remand, the Third Circuit again affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Van Dusen rule does not apply to plaintiff-initiated transfers.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a diversity action, when a plaintiff successfully moves to transfer a case to a more convenient federal forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), must the transferee court apply the choice-of-law rules of the state where the case was originally filed?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. A transfer under § 1404(a) does not change the law applicable to a diversity case, meaning the transferee court must apply the law of the transferor court regardless of who initiated the transfer. The Court extended the rule from Van Dusen v. Barrack, which applied to defendant-initiated transfers, to plaintiff-initiated transfers based on three policies. First, consistent with Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, § 1404(a) is a 'federal judicial housekeeping measure' intended only to change the courtroom for convenience, not to alter state-law advantages a plaintiff secures by selecting a proper forum. Second, this rule does not create new opportunities for forum shopping, as plaintiffs already have the ability to choose a forum with favorable law; § 1404(a) should not permit a defendant to use inconvenience as a shield against a plaintiff's permissible choice. Third, the transfer decision should be based solely on convenience and justice, not on a complex analysis of how a change in law might prejudice one of the parties. A single, clear rule that the transferor law always applies promotes simplicity and judicial economy.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. When a plaintiff initiates a transfer, the transferee court should apply its own state's choice-of-law rules, consistent with Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co. The majority's holding sanctions a 'file-and-transfer' ploy that undermines the core principles of Erie and Klaxon, which aim to ensure uniformity of law within a state and prevent forum shopping between state and federal courts. The plaintiff is effectively using a Pennsylvania federal court to obtain Mississippi law, something a Pennsylvania state court would never do. The rationale of Van Dusen—to prevent defendants from depriving plaintiffs of their chosen forum's legal advantages—does not apply when the plaintiff is the moving party. The majority's rule allows a plaintiff to 'have his cake and eat it too': the favorable law of a distant forum combined with the convenience of their home forum, reducing the Erie doctrine to a 'laughingstock'.
Analysis:
Ferens v. Deere & Co. establishes a clear, bright-line rule that the law of the transferor court follows the case in all § 1404(a) transfers, solidifying the statute's role as a purely procedural mechanism for convenience. This decision prioritizes judicial economy and a uniform application of the transfer statute over concerns about forum shopping. However, as the dissent forcefully argues, the ruling effectively endorses a sophisticated form of forum shopping, allowing plaintiffs to seek out the most favorable state law in any jurisdiction where venue is proper and then transfer the case to the most convenient forum for litigation. This creates an incentive for plaintiffs to file in inconvenient forums solely to capture favorable choice-of-law rules.
