28 U.S.C. § 1631
Transfer to cure want of jurisdiction
Whenever a civil action is filed in a court as defined in section 610 of this title or an appeal, including a petition for review of administrative action, is noticed for or filed with such a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court (or, for cases within the jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court, to that court) in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the action or appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in or noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in or noticed for the court from which it is transferred.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4,564
cases (1,805 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Jan's Helicopter Service, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration
Jan's Helicopter Service, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration (2008)
“("Jan's") and Americopters, LLC ("Americopters"), appeal from decisions of the District Court of Guam transferring their claims against appellee Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") to the United States Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2000). Appellants are…”
Doe v. Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc. (2018)
“%20%C2%A7%201631"> 28 U.S.C. § 1631 [Dkt.”
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Bank of Am. N.A. (2019)
“%20%C2%A7%201631"> 28 U.S.C. § 1631 , based on its conclusion that the suit could not be brought in Indiana because the Defendant (a nationally chartered bank and citizen of North Carolina) was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Indiana.”
Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. (1988)
“See 28 U. S. C. § 1631 . The Seventh Circuit, however, raising the jurisdictional issue sua sponte, concluded that the Federal Circuit was "clearly wrong" and transferred the case back.”
Skillo v. United States (2005)
“The court now addresses each of plaintiffs’ claims in their Complaint, as clarified by their Response, and then addresses the possibility of transferring plaintiffs’ action to the United States Tax Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2000). C.”
Zoltek Corp. v. United States (2012)
“The trial court allowed the amendment and transfer because it concluded that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1631 , the transfer statute, were satisfied.”
Matthews v. United States (2006)
“28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2000). The word “courts” is defined in Section 610 as including “the courts of appeals and district courts of the United States.”
Resource Associates Grant Writing & Evaluation Services, Inc. v. Southampton Union Free School District (2016)
“Second, the Court will transfer this action to the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 . FACTUAL BACKGROUND The plaintiff need make only a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction to defeat a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of…”
Fidel Bibiano v. Loretta E. Lynch (2016)
“The panel held that in such a situation, federal circuit courts have inherent transfer authority and need not rely on 28 U.S.C. § 1631 for statutory authority.”
Alvarado Hospital, LLC v. Cochran (2017)
“Plaintiffs-Appellants Prime Hospitals1 appeal from the order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California transferring their complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the United States Court of 1 Alvarado Hospital, LLC; Veritas Health Services, Inc.”
D'Jamoos, Estate of Weingeroff v. Pilatus Aircraft (2009)
“(“Pilatus”) 1 to dismiss it as a defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction, and (2) denying appellants’ motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 . D’Jamoos v.”
Gray v. United States (2005)
“Pending before the court are defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) and plaintiffs motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 . The plaintiff, Ms.”
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.