Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Venue Forum Non Conveniens And Transfer

7 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Venue Forum Non Conveniens And TransferQuestion 1 of 7

Plummer, a Washington resident, was injured when a ladder he purchased and used at a job site in Oregon collapsed. Plummer brought a state-law products liability action against LadderCo, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Oregon, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. LadderCo has no offices, employees, or property in Washington, does not sell or ship its products to Washington, and does not direct advertising there. LadderCo moved to transfer the case to the District of Oregon under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). Plummer opposed. The court granted the motion as serving the interest of justice, without specifying the statutory basis for the transfer. After the transfer, the parties disputed which state's choice-of-law rules govern the action.

The following authorities are relevant: 28 U.S.C. §1391(b): "A civil action may be brought in—(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) 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 with respect to such action." 28 U.S.C. §1404(a): "For 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." 28 U.S.C. §1406(a): "The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." Kleinfeld v. Remington: "When a case is transferred under §1404(a), the transferee court applies the choice-of-law rules that the transferor court would have applied. When a case is transferred under §1406(a), because the original venue was improper, the transferee court applies its own choice-of-law rules, as if the action had been filed there originally."

Which state's choice-of-law rules should the District of Oregon apply in deciding the substantive law governing Plummer's claim?

Washington's, because LadderCo moved under §1404(a) and a §1404(a) transfer preserves the transferor court's choice-of-law rules.

Oregon's, because venue was improper in Washington and the transfer therefore took effect under §1406(a), not §1404(a).

Delaware's, because LadderCo is a Delaware corporation and the law of the state of incorporation governs a corporation's tort liability.

No state's choice-of-law rules; the federal court should apply federal common law because the transfer was ordered by a federal court.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Venue Forum Non Conveniens And Transfer

Practice Venue Forum Non Conveniens And Transfer in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Venue Forum Non Conveniens And Transfer, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Which state's choice-of-law rules should the District of Oregon apply in deciding the substantive law governing Plummer's claim?

Washington's, because LadderCo moved under §1404(a) and a §1404(a) transfer preserves the transferor court's choice-of-law rules.
Oregon's, because venue was improper in Washington and the transfer therefore took effect under §1406(a), not §1404(a). (correct answer)
Delaware's, because LadderCo is a Delaware corporation and the law of the state of incorporation governs a corporation's tort liability.
No state's choice-of-law rules; the federal court should apply federal common law because the transfer was ordered by a federal court.

Explanation: When you see a transfer-of-venue question, first ask whether the original venue was proper; that determines which statute governs and whose choice-of-law rules follow. Here, venue in Washington fails under every prong of §1391(b). LadderCo's residence is its principal place of business, Oregon, not Washington. The injury and the product's use occurred in Oregon, not Washington. LadderCo lacks contacts with Washington, so no substantial events occurred there. Because venue was improper, the transfer had to be effectuated under §1406(a), not §1404(a). Kleinfeld v. Remington tells you the consequence: a §1406(a) transfer is treated as if the case was originally filed in the transferee district, so the District of Oregon applies Oregon's choice-of-law rules. The court's failure to cite the statute does not matter; substance controls. The choice invoking Washington's rules assumes a §1404(a) transfer, but §1404(a) cannot apply when the transferor district lacked venue. The choice invoking Delaware law confuses the internal-affairs doctrine (which governs a corporation's internal management) with tort liability, which is a substantive issue chosen through state choice-of-law rules. The "federal common law" choice is wrong because this is a state-law products liability claim; federal courts do not supply their own choice-of-law rules for state claims. Remember: under §1406(a), improper venue → transferee law; under §1404(a), proper venue → transferor law. Always check venue propriety before choosing the choice-of-law rule.

Question 2

Hanover, a New Jersey corporation, was sued by Patel in the District of New Jersey. Hanover's first response was a motion to dismiss Patel's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; the motion did not mention venue. The court denied the motion. Hanover then filed an answer alleging as an affirmative defense that venue is improper because all of Hanover's relevant operations and the events giving rise to Patel's claim occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Hanover also filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue. Patel argues that Hanover raised the venue objection too late.

Which issue is most directly presented by Patel's argument?

Whether the court should transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the interest of justice.
Whether lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time despite an earlier Rule 12 motion.
Whether Hanover waived the venue objection by failing to raise it in its first Rule 12 motion. (correct answer)
Whether Hanover may assert improper venue as an affirmative defense in its answer after its Rule 12 motion.

Explanation: Whenever you see a party argue that an objection came "too late," the concept is waiver. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, certain defenses—including improper venue—must be raised either in a pre-answer motion or in the answer. Critically, Rule 12(g) and 12(h)(1) add that if a party files a Rule 12 motion and omits one of those defenses, the omitted defense is waived for good. Here, Hanover's first response was a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. That motion did not mention venue. Because Hanover already made a Rule 12 motion, it had one chance to consolidate every waivable defense. By leaving venue out, Hanover waived it—even if it later tried to raise it in an answer and in another motion. So the most direct issue is whether Hanover's failure to raise venue in its first motion forfeited the objection. That's exactly the correct answer. The transfer option is a remedy a court might consider if venue were properly challenged, but it is not the issue Patel's "too late" argument presents. The subject-matter jurisdiction choice describes a different rule: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can indeed be raised any time, but venue is not jurisdictional and is waivable. Finally, asserting venue as an affirmative defense in the answer sounds plausible, but once Hanover filed its first Rule 12 motion without venue, the later answer came too late to revive it. Study tip: on civil procedure questions, always track the first defensive move. If it's a Rule 12 motion, all waivable defenses must appear in it or they are gone.

Question 3

Kahn, a citizen of Oregon, was injured when a ski lift at a resort in British Columbia, Canada, malfunctioned. The lift was designed and maintained by NorthPeak, a Canadian corporation with its headquarters in Vancouver and its only U.S. office in Portland, Oregon. Kahn sued NorthPeak in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. NorthPeak does not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, but it moves to dismiss the action, arguing that all design files, maintenance records, and Canadian employees are in British Columbia and that Canada provides an adequate alternative forum. Kahn responds that, if the Oregon forum is inconvenient, the court should transfer the case to the District of Alaska, where NorthPeak has a regional office and is subject to jurisdiction and venue, rather than dismiss it.

Which legal issue is most central to deciding whether the court should dismiss or transfer the action?

Whether the tort claims are governed by Oregon law or by the law of British Columbia.
Whether NorthPeak's contacts with Oregon are sufficient to support venue in that district.
Whether dismissal to a Canadian forum is warranted even though transfer to another federal district may be possible. (correct answer)
Whether the District of Alaska is a district where Kahn could have originally filed suit.

Explanation: NorthPeak is asking the federal court to decline to hear the case and send the plaintiff to Canada, which is the hallmark of forum non conveniens. The central issue is whether dismissal to a foreign forum is warranted despite the possible availability of a transfer to another federal district. A transfer to Alaska, if otherwise available, does not by itself answer whether the Canadian forum is the more appropriate one. Choice A is a merits/choice-of-law question, not the procedural issue raised by the motion. Choice B is irrelevant because NorthPeak expressly does not contest venue. Choice D could matter if transfer were being considered, but it does not resolve whether dismissal in favor of Canada is appropriate.

Question 4

Volk, a California citizen, was injured when a clothing rack fell on her at a Trendwear store in Los Angeles. Trendwear is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York. Volk sued Trendwear in the District of Delaware, where Trendwear is incorporated and maintains a registered agent. Trendwear does not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, but it asks the court to transfer the case to the Central District of California, where the store, Volk, and most witnesses are located.

Which of the following is the most accurate characterization of Trendwear's request?

A motion to dismiss for improper venue because the events giving rise to the claim all took place in California.
A motion to transfer because venue is improper in Delaware and the claim arose in the Central District of California.
A motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens because California has a stronger relationship to the dispute than Delaware.
A motion to transfer the action from a proper venue to a more convenient federal district because the witnesses are located in California. (correct answer)

Explanation: Trendwear is incorporated in Delaware, so it is subject to venue there, and it has not contested venue. The fact that the injury occurred in California does not make Delaware an improper venue. Because the original district is proper but a different federal district would be more convenient, Trendwear's request is properly characterized as a transfer for convenience under the federal transfer statute. Choices A and B are wrong because venue is not improper in Delaware. Choice C is wrong because forum non conveniens concerns dismissal to a different sovereign forum, not transfer between federal districts within the United States.

Question 5

Bluestone, a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, and Apex, a California corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, entered into a supply agreement. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The agreement provides: "The parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for any action arising out of this agreement." A dispute arose, and Bluestone sued Apex in the Northern District of Georgia. Apex appeared and, without contesting personal jurisdiction, moved to enforce the forum-selection clause. Both parties agree that the clause is valid and enforceable.

How should the court handle Apex's motion to enforce the forum-selection clause?

Dismiss the action because Bluestone contractually waived its right to sue Apex in Georgia.
Stay the action and order arbitration because the clause shows the parties intended to avoid litigation.
Deny the motion because private parties cannot override the federal venue statutes by agreement.
Transfer the action to the Northern District of California because the clause designates a federal forum. (correct answer)

Explanation: When a valid and enforceable forum-selection clause designates a federal district court, the appropriate mechanism for enforcing it in federal court is ordinarily transfer to that district, not dismissal. Here, the clause designates the Northern District of California, and because the parties are diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the action could have been brought there. Choice A is wrong because dismissal is not the usual remedy when the selected forum is another federal district. Choice B is wrong because the clause selects a court, not arbitration. Choice C is wrong because an enforceable forum-selection clause may be given effect through the transfer rules even though it does not divest a court of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Question 6

AquaDyne, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, sold a water-pump system to Reid, a California citizen. Reid sued AquaDyne in the Southern District of New York, asserting diversity-jurisdiction claims for breach of contract and negligence; the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. AquaDyne moved to transfer the action to the Northern District of California for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, where the pump was installed and the alleged failure occurred, and the court granted the motion. The parties now disagree about which State's substantive law governs Reid's claims.

Which legal issue is most directly raised by the parties' disagreement after the transfer?

Whether the transfer order should be reconsidered because the Southern District of New York was a proper venue.
Whether the transferee court must apply the choice-of-law rules that the transferor court would have applied. (correct answer)
Whether AquaDyne is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California.
Whether California law automatically governs because the pump failed and caused injury in California.

Explanation: Whenever you see a post-transfer dispute over governing law, separate three concepts that often blur: venue, personal jurisdiction, and choice of law. After a §1404 convenience transfer, the choice-of-law question is controlled by Van Dusen v. Barrack. The transferee court must apply the same choice-of-law rules that the transferor court would have applied. Because the Southern District of New York was the transferor forum, the Northern District of California must apply New York's choice-of-law principles to decide whether New York or California substantive law governs Reid's claims. That is the issue the parties' disagreement directly raises. The suggestion that the transfer order should be reconsidered because the Southern District was a proper venue misses the point: proper venue was satisfied initially, and transfer was granted for convenience—not because venue was improper—so reconsideration isn't the governing-law question. Similarly, the claim that the transferee court needs personal jurisdiction over AquaDyne misunderstands transfer: jurisdiction was established in the original court, and a §1404 transfer carries the case without requiring independent jurisdiction in California. Finally, California does not automatically govern merely because the pump failed caused injury there; injury location is just one factor considered under whichever state's choice-of-law rules apply, and those rules are the transferor court's rules. Study tip: on transfer questions, remembember the maxim "transfer follows the transferor court's choice-of-law rules." That instantly distinguishes §1404 transfers from forum non conveniens dismissals, where the new court applies its own law.

Question 7

Delgado, a citizen of Arizona, was injured in a rear-end collision in El Paso, Texas. The driver was Ruiz, a citizen of Texas domiciled in El Paso. The truck was owned by Ruiz's employer, Cortez Transport, a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in El Paso. Cortez Transport has regular trucking routes through New Mexico and is subject to personal jurisdiction there. Delgado sued both Ruiz and Cortez Transport in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, where Delgado received medical treatment after the accident. The defendants concede that the District of New Mexico has personal jurisdiction over them and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and complete diversity exists. They move to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer the action to the Western District of Texas, arguing that venue is improper in New Mexico.

Which issue is most directly presented by the defendants' motion?

Whether venue is proper in New Mexico when Ruiz is not a resident and the collision occurred in Texas. (correct answer)
Whether the District of New Mexico has personal jurisdiction over Ruiz and Cortez Transport.
Whether Delgado's medical treatment in New Mexico makes that forum more convenient for the parties.
Whether the parties' citizenship and amount in controversy support diversity jurisdiction.

Explanation: The motion specifically challenges venue. Venue in federal court may be proper where all defendants reside in the same State as the district, or where a substantial part of the events or property giving rise to the claim is located. Ruiz is a Texas resident, and the collision occurred in Texas; Delgado's subsequent medical treatment in New Mexico is not a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim. Thus venue is the threshold issue. Choice B is not central because the defendants conceded personal jurisdiction. Choice C is a convenience-transfer consideration, but it does not resolve whether venue is proper in the first place. Choice D is also conceded and therefore not the issue raised by the motion.