28 U.S.C. § 1406

Cure or waiver of defects

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(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.(b) Nothing in this chapter shall impair the jurisdiction of a district court of any matter involving a party who does not interpose timely and sufficient objection to the venue.(c) As 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; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 81, 63 Stat. 101; Pub. L. 86–770, § 1, Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 912; Pub. L. 87–845, § 10, Oct. 18, 1962, 76A Stat. 699; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 132, Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 39; Pub. L. 104–317, title VI, § 610(b), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3860.)Historical and Revision Notes1948 Act

Subsection (a) provides statutory sanction for transfer instead of dismissal, where venue is improperly laid.

Subsection (b) is declaratory of existing law. (See Panama R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 1924, 44 S.Ct. 391, 264 U.S. 375, 68 L.Ed. 748.) It makes clear the intent of Congress that venue provisions are not jurisdictional but may be waived.

1949 Act

This section removes an ambiguity in section 1406(a) of title 28, U.S.C., by substituting “may” for “shall”, thus making it clear that the court may decline to transfer a case brought in the wrong district under circumstances where it would not be in the interest of justice to make such transfer. [The amendment to section 1406(a) of this title described in this note was altered in the bill as enacted. See Cong. Rec., vol. 95, pt. 5, pp. 5826, 5827, 6283, 6284.]

Editorial NotesAmendments

1996—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 104–317 amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) 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.”

1982—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 97–164 redesignated subsec. (d) as (c). Former subsec. (c), which provided that if a case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Claims were filed in a district court, the district court, if it were in the interest of justice, was required to transfer the case to the Court of Claims where the case would proceed as if it had been filed in the Court of Claims on the date that it was filed in the district court, was struck out.

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

1960—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 86–770 added subsec. (c).

1949—Subsec. (a). Act May 24, 1949, inserted “dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–317 applicable to cases pending on Oct. 19, 1996, and to cases commenced on or after such date, see section 610(c) of Pub. L. 104–317, set out as a note under section 1404 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

Effective Date of 1962 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 87–845 effective Jan. 2, 1962, see section 25 of Pub. L. 87–845, set out as a note under section 414 of this title.

Effective Date of 1960 Amendment

Pub. L. 86–770, § 4, Sept. 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 913, provided in part that: “The amendments made by sections 1 and 2 of this Act [adding subsec. (c) of this section and section 1506 of this title] shall apply to any case or proceeding pending on, or brought after, the date of enactment of this Act [Sept. 13, 1960] in the district courts or the Court of Claims.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7,745 cases (3,995 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Freedman v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 271 (D.D.C. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Freedman v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 271 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 18× “District Court for the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1631 .”

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988). · cites it 4× “§ 1404 (a) or to dismiss the case for improper venue under 28 U. S. C. § 1406 . The District Court denied the motion.”

Tobias Chavez v. Dole Food Co. Inc, 836 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “Following the plaintiffs’ lead, it focused on the federal statute governing transfer of venue, 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a), which states that if a district court concludes that a plaintiff has sued “in the wrong division or district,” the district court “shall dismiss, or if it be in…”

Bigelow v. Tom Garrett & Tom Garrett for Cong., 299 F. Supp. 3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 7× “§ 1404 (a) as one brought instead under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.”

In Re: Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 3× “Accordingly, the court’s decision refusing transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a)‘was an abuse of discretion.”

Williams v. GEICO CORP., 792 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 6× “For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss and instead will transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). BACKGROUND I. Factual Background Williams worked as a systems…”

Fam v. Bank of Am. NA (USA), 236 F. Supp. 3d 397 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 6× “LEGAL STANDARD Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a party to move to dismiss a case for “improper venue.”

Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “” The court then correctly noted that, “[u]nder these circumstances, claims against the Virginia Defendants could be severed and transferred to Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) & (3) .”

Get in Shape Franchise, Inc. v. TFL Fishers, LLC, 167 F. Supp. 3d 173 (D. Mass. 2016). · cites it 6× “§ 1404 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). FACTS The following facts are taken from the Complaint (Docket No.”

DRFP, LLC v. Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, 945 F. Supp. 2d 890 (S.D. Ohio 2013). · cites it 10× “Defendants request transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a), maintaining that venue in this Court is improper.”

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Sys., Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 916 (E.D. Va. 2017). · cites it 5× “In the wake of these decisions, venue for this suit does not properly lie in the Eastern District of Virginia, and the interests of justice require that this action be transferred to the District of Connecticut pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Symbology…”

George Jumara & Evangelina Jumara, H/w v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3rd Cir. 1995). · cites it 4× “Although the district court in effect disposed of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (for improper venue), we conclude that, because venue was actually proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the case could not be dismissed pursuant to that provision.”

Show all 7,745 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) — 98 cases

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Sys., Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 916 (E.D. Va. 2017). “In the wake of these decisions, venue for this suit does not properly lie in the Eastern District of Virginia, and the interests of justice require that this action be transferred to the District of Connecticut pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Symbology…”

Jenkins Brick Co., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. John E. Bremer, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, Aaa Spec Block, Inc., 321 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2003).

Cormier v. Fisher, 404 F. Supp. 2d 357 (D. Me. 2005).

Slaby v. Holder, 901 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2012).

Bill Phillips v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 874 F.2d 984 (5th Cir. 1989).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1406(b) — 2 cases

United States v. Kahane, 396 F. Supp. 687 (E.D.N.Y 1975).

Alaska Airlines v. United States, 399 F. Supp. 906 (N.D. Cal. 1975).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1406(c) — 1 case

Carlos Matienzo Roman v. Mariano Acosta Velarde, 428 F.2d 129 (1st Cir. 1970).

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.