U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART IV— JURISDICTION AND VENUE › Chapter CHAPTER 87— DISTRICT COURTS; VENUE

28 U.S.C. § 1404

Change of venue

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(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.(b) Upon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be transferred, in the discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any other division in the same district. Transfer of proceedings in rem brought by or on behalf of the United States may be transferred under this section without the consent of the United States where all other parties request transfer.(c) A district court may order any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.(d) Transfers from a district court of the United States to the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall not be permitted under this section. As otherwise used in this section, the term “district court” includes the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the term “district” includes the territorial jurisdiction of each such court.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 937; Pub. L. 87–845, § 9, Oct. 18, 1962, 76A Stat. 699; Pub. L. 104–317, title VI, § 610(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3860; Pub. L. 112–63, title II, § 204, Dec. 7, 2011, 125 Stat. 764.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 119, 163 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 58, 36 Stat. 1103; Sept. 8, 1916, ch. 475, § 5, 39 Stat. 851).

Section consolidates sections 119 and 163 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with necessary changes in phraseology and substance.

Section 119 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., related only to transfer of cases from one division to another on stipulation of the parties.

Subsection (a) was drafted in accordance with the doctrine of forum non conveniens, permitting transfer to a more convenient forum, even though the venue is proper. As an example of the need of such a provision, see Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, 1941, 62 S.Ct. 6, 314 U.S. 44, 86 L.Ed. 28, which was prosecuted under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act in New York, although the accident occurred and the employee resided in Ohio. The new subsection requires the court to determine that the transfer is necessary for convenience of the parties and witnesses, and further, that it is in the interest of justice to do so.

Sections 143, 172, 177, and 181 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to the district courts of Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, and Ohio, contained special provisions similar to subsection (b), applicable to those States. To establish uniformity, the general language of such subsection has been drafted and the special provisions of those sections omitted.

Subsection (b) is based upon section 163 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., which applied only to the district of Maine. This revised subsection extends to all judicial districts and permits transfer of cases between divisions. Criminal cases may be transferred pursuant to Rules 19–21 of the new Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the criminal provisions of said section 163 are therefore omitted.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–63, § 204(1), inserted “or to any district or division to which all parties have consented” before period at end.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 112–63, § 204(2), substituted “Transfers from a district court of the United States to the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court of the Virgin Islands shall not be permitted under this section. As otherwise used in this section,” for “As used in this section,”.

1996—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 104–317 amended subsec. (d) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (d) read as follows: “As used in this section, ‘district court’ includes the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone; and ‘district’ includes the territorial jurisdiction of that court.”

1962—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 87–845 added subsec. (d).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2011 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–63 effective upon the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on Dec. 7, 2011, and applicable to any action commenced in a United States district court on or after such effective date, and to any action removed from a State court to a United States district court that had been commenced, within the meaning of State law, on or after such effective date, see section 205 of Pub. L. 112–63, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1390 of this title.

Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Pub. L. 104–317, title VI, § 610(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3861, provided that: “The amendments made by this section [amending this section and section 1406 of this title] apply to cases pending on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 19, 1996] and to cases commenced on or after such date.”

Effective Date of 1962 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 87–845 effective Jan. 2, 1963, see section 25 of Pub. L. 87–845, set out as a note under section 414 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17,157 cases (6,558 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: In Re: Rolls Royce Corporation
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re: Rolls Royce Corporation (2014) ca5 · cites it 15× “3 3 The motion to sever was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 21 and the motion to transfer was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). These motions were the second set of motions filed in this case.”
Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. (1988) scotus · cites it 10× “Relying on the contractual forum-selection clause, respondent moved the District Court either to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York under 28 U. S. C. § 1404 (a) or to dismiss the case for improper venue under 28 U.”
In Re Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (2017) ca3 · cites it 7× “In the absence of a forum-selection clause, a defendant in federal court may move under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) for a transfer to' another district for “convenience” and “in the interest of justice.”
Presidential Hospitality, LLC v. Wyndham Hotel Grp., LLC (2018) nmd · cites it 26× “BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Brief in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), filed September 29, 2017 (Doc.”
Terra International, Inc. v. Mississippi Chemical Corp. (1996) iand · cites it 31× “The plaintiff seeks to enjoin permanently the lawsuit brought by the defendant in Mississippi, while the defendant seeks to transfér this lawsuit to Mississippi federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 or, failing that, to stay the present litigation.”
Martinez v. Bloomberg LP (2014) ca2 · cites it 10× “1988) 11 (finding denial of motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) proper, despite 12 forum selection clause, since district court acted within its discretion in holding 13 that transfer would undermine civil rights statutes); see also Roby v.”
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1982) scotus · cites it 6× “Piper then moved for transfer to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1404 (a). [4] Hartzell moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer.”
Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp. (2000) txed · cites it 22× “Motion to Transfer for Improper Venue or, In the Alternative, Opposed Motion to Transfer Venue Due to Inconvenient Forum [4] as to the motion to transfer for improper venue; and it DENIES Defendant Mazda’s Opposed Motion to Transfer for Improper Venue or, In the Alternative,…”
Ryze Claims Solutions, LLC v. Jane Magnus-Stinson (2020) ca7 · cites it 6× “Billings had failed to show why the forum‐selection clause should not control and granted RYZE’s motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) to the Southern District of Indiana.”
Phillips v. Reed Group, Ltd. (2013) nysd · cites it 8× “] Defendants then moved to dismiss or in the alternative to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). [dkt. no. 28.] Magistrate Judge Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) in which…”
George Jumara and Evangelina Jumara, H/w v. State Farm Insurance Company (1995) ca3 · cites it 7× “The district court should instead have invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), which involves a multi-factor balancing test in which a contractual forum selection clause carries substantial although not dispositive weight.”
Keitt v. New York City (2011) nysd · cites it 5× “” 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). VII. Keitt’s Motion to Amend Magistrate Judge Freeman properly concluded that Keitt’s request for leave to amend his complaint with respect to the City Defendants be denied, with prejudice.”
Show all 17,157 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1404(3a) — 1 case
Chukwu v. Air France (2002) ilnd
— 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) — 287 cases
W. Watersheds Project v. Tidwell (2017) cadc
Öztürk v. Hyde (2025) ca2
Ryan DeKeyser v. Thyssenkrupp Waupaca, Incorpor (2017) ca7
Allstar Marketing Group, LLC v. Your Store Online, LLC (2009) cacd
Wyler-Wittenberg v. Metlife Home Loans, Inc. (2012) nyed
— 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b) — 3 cases
High River Ltd. Partnership v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (2005) pamd
Galfand v. Chestnutt (1975) nysd
Gentox Medical Services v. Abdelwahab (2021) ohnd
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.