Indiana Found to be Proper Venue in Federal Court Case that was Previously Transferred Based on Convenience and in the Interest of Justice

In this federal court case, the plaintiff, Clovis Aresnault, commenced an action in the Northern District of Indiana alleging exposure to asbestos while working in steel mills in Illinois and at a plant located both in Illinois and the Northern District of Indiana. The case was transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of the multi-district litigation. The case was remanded back to Indiana after an order granted part of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff subsequently moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and defendant, CBS Corporation, opposed.

In the court’s analysis, it noted: “28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is the provision of the United States Code that governs change of venue and provides that ‘[f]or 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 or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.’ Therefore, for a case to be transferred, the movant must demonstrate that (1) venue is proper in the transferor court; (2) venue is proper in the transferee court; and (3) the transfer serves the convenience of the parties and witnesses and is in the interests of justice. The decision to transfer an action is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the analysis is made on a case-by-case, fact-intensive inquiry; the statute does not indicate the relative weight to be accorded each factor.” (Internal citations omitted). The court denied the transfer motion and held: “In considering all of the factors and Plaintiff’s insubstantial argument, Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that the Northern District of Illinois is a ‘clearly more convenient’ forum than the Northern District of Indiana.”

Read the full decision here.