Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman et al.

Supreme Court of United States
369 U.S. 463 (1962)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A district court, in which a case is filed with improper venue, has the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer the case to a district where it could have been brought, even if the transferring court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

Facts:

Goldlawr, Inc. filed a private antitrust action against several defendants, including two corporate entities.
The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania based on Goldlawr's belief that the defendants were 'found' or 'transacted business' within that district.
In actuality, the two corporate defendants were not inhabitants of, found in, nor transacting business in Pennsylvania.
Dismissing the case instead of transferring it would have resulted in Goldlawr's cause of action being barred by the statute of limitations.

Procedural Posture:

Goldlawr, Inc. sued several defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction.
The District Court found venue to be improper as to two corporate defendants but, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rather than dismissing it.
In the Southern District of New York, the two corporate defendants again moved to dismiss, arguing the Pennsylvania court lacked the power to transfer because it did not have personal jurisdiction over them.
The District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion to dismiss.
Goldlawr, Inc. appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on this 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:

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) authorize a district court that lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants to transfer a case to another district where venue is proper and jurisdiction can be obtained?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Black

Yes. A district court has the authority to transfer a case under § 1406(a) even if it lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The plain language of the statute does not impose a personal jurisdiction requirement. The legislative history shows a clear congressional purpose to avoid the injustice of dismissing cases due to a plaintiff's erroneous guess about venue, especially when a statute of limitations is at issue. The statute is a remedial provision designed to remove procedural obstacles and allow for the adjudication of cases on their merits, rather than on 'time-consuming and justice-defeating technicalities.'

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan

No. A district court should not be able to take an action that affects a defendant's substantive rights, such as a transfer, without first acquiring personal jurisdiction over that defendant. The concept is contrary to traditional federal jurisprudence. The 'interest of justice' mentioned in the statute is not a 'one-way street' and should protect defendants as well. It is incongruous that Congress would provide a remedy for cases lacking both venue and jurisdiction, while providing no similar remedy for cases where venue is proper but jurisdiction is lacking. The issue is better left for Congress to resolve.

Analysis:

This decision significantly broadens the remedial power of federal district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). By divorcing the power to transfer from the requirement of personal jurisdiction, the Court prioritized substance over procedural technicalities, ensuring plaintiffs are not unfairly penalized for good-faith errors in selecting a venue. This ruling resolved a circuit split, establishing a uniform national standard that promotes the adjudication of claims on their merits. The case reinforces the modern trend in federal procedure toward flexibility and the avoidance of dismissals on grounds that do not relate to the core of the dispute.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman et al. (1962)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"