Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ferens v. John Deere Co.

Supreme Court brief1990

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS POR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Sramuey V. Osraow, Eso.

Reween B. Tockes, Il, Be *

Whi A. Peweon, Eso.

TUCKER ARENSSERG, PC

1200 Pittsburgh Nationa! Bidg

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania | 522)

(412) 366-1212

Counsel for Petitioners

Albert J Ferens and

Margaret L. Ferens, his wile

Counsel of Record for Petitioners

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether a district cout to which a case has been

transferred pursuant to 28 US §1404(a) 1s obligated to

apply the state law that would have been apphed if there

had been no transfer where the transfer is from 4 court

having proper venue and jursdiction and the transfer has

occurred as the result of an unopposed motion by the

planufl

lL The Decision Of The Third Circuit Holding

That The Transferee District Court Is Not

Obdligated To Apply The Law Of The

Transferor State When The Planuff is The

Mowing Party Is In Confict With Thess

Court's Reasonmg In Van Dusen + Barrack

tL The Decsmon Of The Third Circuit Holding

That The Transferee District Court Is Not

Odligated To Apply The Law Of The

Transferor State When The Plannff Is The

Mowing Party Is In Conflict With The Rea-

somng In Decrmoas From Other Curcust

weww 4

APPENDICES:

Appendix A—Opimon of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dated

the United States dated June 27, 1988 ........ A-1?

Appendix C—Opimon of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dated

Appendix E—Judgment of the United States

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page

Alexander v. Richardson-Merrell. Inc..

$41 F. Supp. 93 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) .............. 17

Bott v. American Hydrocarbon Corp., 441 F.2d 896

CE EE ee ae 18

Carson v. U-Haul Co., 434 F.2d 916 (6th Cir. 1970)... 18

Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217

8 Ee ee 11, 13, 16

Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-S8S,

STD 2.0) bn ccdencendasseséonesees il

Cowan v. Ford Motor Co., 719 F.2d 785

St iivageeehsoneeseeeeeeeseooseos 8

Cowan v. Ford Motor Co., 713 F.2d 100

ERS a 4

Cowan v. Ford Motor Co., 694 F.2d 104

Lan nccann 641b060000606600060008 12

Davis v. Costa—Gavras, $80 F. Supp. 1082

¢ ae yer 18

Ellis v. Great Southwestern Corp., 646 F.2d 1099

CG Ends eduestscseoebbsoeosoosers< 19

Ferens v. Deere & Co., %2 F.2d 31

ET Co cid nuda sdeudkeis 7, 8 10, 14, 15, 19

Ferens v. Deere & Co... _ US. —. 108 S.Ct. 2862

EE ssaneneendbebeoe 7

Ferens v. Deere & Co., $19 F.2d 423 (3rd Cir. 1987),

vacated and remanded, _.. U.S. —., 108 S.C.

Dt a. scccueedsesusneedennsamnendl 6,7

Page

Gonzalez v. Volvo of America Corp., 734 F.2d 1221

(7th Cir. 1984), superseded, 752 F.2d 295

TE 16

In re Air Crash Disaster at Washington D.C.

on January 13, 1982, 559 F. Supp. 333

EE ee ee 17

In re Richardson-Merrell, Inc., $45 F. Supp. 1130

(S.D. Ohio 1982), aff'd. 727 F.2d 608

ETE AE 17

King v. Otasco, Inc., 861 F.2d 438 (Sth Cir. 1988) .... 8

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co..

EE EE 8

Louisiana & Mississippi R. Transfer Co. v. Long,

159 Miss. 654, 131 So. 84 (1930)............... 8

Manley v. Engram, 755 F.2d 1463 (11th Cir. 1985) .. 17

Martin v. Stokes, 623 F.2d 469

ee cae es oc cuctkedbed 15, 16, 18

Nelson v. International Paint Co., 716 F.2d 640

i ean a ees coc 17

Parham v. Edwards, 346 F. Supp. 968 (S.D. Ga.

1972), aff'd per curiam, 470 F.2d 1000

i i a els cnn oe 18

Philip Carey Manufacturing Co. v. Taylor, 286 F.2d

782 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 366 US. 948 (1961) ..11

Poole v. Mississippi Publishers Corp., 208 Miss. 364,

ST cnn cendcnsesesssbesecces:< 12

RPJ Sportswear, Inc. v. Xylo Tex, Lid, 681 F. Supp.

TIES ESTE Wi STE 17

Page

Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co., 630 F.2d 149 (3rd Cir.

1980), rev'd, 454 U.S. 235 (1981)... . ©. 6... 19

Roofing & Sheet Metal Services, Inc. v. LaQuinta

Motor Inns, Inc., 689 F.2d 982

SE Mans once cacencenes 15, 16, 18, 19

Ross v. Colorado Outward Bound School. Inc..

822 F.2d 1524 (10th Cir. 1987)... . 2... 666 oe. 17

S.& W. Construction Co. ». Douglas, 244 Miss. 498,

ST + <5 bn cccccensesesbeooeese 12

Schreiber v. Allis-Chaimers Corp., 611 F.2d 790

Th said enadh egeceoseeces 10, 12

Shewbrooks v. A.C. and S., Inc., $29 So.2d $57

TG ine pine eeveceeuesensesenecess 8, 12

Stewart Organization, inc. v. Ricoh Corp... US.

—_= i ee 10

Subacz v. Town Tower Motel Corp., 567 F. Supp.

oo nd ne cencenaseocnes i8

Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, — U.S. — ., 108 S.CL

TD <_peccegons oeeeesesesesosoosees 7,8

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Tetzlaff. 683 F. Supp.

i oa oe ea ens 17

Van Dusen v. Barrack.

376 U.S. 612 (1964). . .8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19

Vick v. Cochran, 316 So.2d 242 (Miss. 1975).......... 8

Western Smelting & Metals, Inc. v. Slater Steel, Inc.

621 F. Supp. 578 (N_D. Ind. 1985) .......... 17, 18

vil

Page

SraTures

EEE ee aE OP 3

ETE ee eee ee ee 6

EET ee TE eR 12

28 U.S.C. §1404(a). .4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Dien cia ke cecccoccossseseces 16

Miss. Code Ann. §15-1-49 (1972) ............... 4,58

Miss. Code Ann. §79-1-27 (1972)

(repealed effective January |, 1988)............. 12

Miss. Code Ann. §79-3-229 (1972)

(repealed effective January 1, 1988)............. 12

13 Pa. CSA. §2725 (Purdon 1984)................. 5

42 Pa. CS.A. §5524(2) (Purdon 1981) ............. 4,6

42 Pa. CSA. §5525 (Purdon 1981)................. 5

Ruves

Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ... 6

MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES

iJ. -haaasnneananmneasrase 90. 145[4.-2)024 ed.

wTTT TTT TTT TTT TTT TTT TTT TTT tTee il

iJ. a Moore's Federal Practice, $0.145[4.-S)2d ed.

eT TTT TT TTT TT TTT TTT TTT TT TT e 17

Note, Choice of Law im Federal Courts after Transfer

of Venue, 63 Cornell L. Rev. 149 (1977)......... 17

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

—

Petinoners, Albert J. Ferens and Margaret L. Ferens.

hus wife, respectfully pray that a wrt of cernoran issue to

review the Judgment and Opimon of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit entered in the

above-entitied case on November 25. | 988.

The Opemon of the U aned States ( our! of Appeals for

the Third Circuit ssued Nowember 25. 1965. upon the

rendering of the Judgment sought to be reviewed, «

reported at 662 F 2d 3) and appears herein as Appendin A

at page A-1. The Order of this Court entered on June 27.

1988, vacating the prior Judgment of the Therd Circus and

remanding the case to the Therd (ircust for further comwd-

cratios 6 reported a@ . US —. 108 SCL 2862 and

appears berein as Appendian B at page A-17. The prior

Opinion of the Third Cirvcult Gated May 25. 1987. us

reported at 619 F ld 423 and appears berem as Append

C at page 4-18 The Opinion of the United States District

Count for the Western Destrict of Pennsytvans ss reporied

a 639 F Seppo |484 and appears herein os Append D at

page AM

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Judgment of the United States ( ourt of Appeals

for the Thard Circust sought to be reviewed was entered on

November 25, 1988. The Order of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Third Curcust denying the Petinoners

umety Peumon For Rehearnng And For Rehearing En Banc

was entered on January § 1989 Thies petition for a ent of

cervoran 1s beung fled eithen ninety (9) days of the demal

of Petutuoners’ Petsuon For Rehearing And For Rehearing

En Banc The jurisdiction of thes Court s invoked under

USC. §12541)

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

28 USC. §1404(a) provides:

For the convemence of partes and witnesses. in the

interest of justice. a district court may transfer any

civil action to any other district of division where it

might have been brought

Miss. Code Ann. §15-1-49 (1972) prowides:

All actions for which no penod of hmrtations 1s pre.

scribed shall be commenced within wa years neu after

the cause of such action accrued. and not after

42 Pa CSA §5524(2) (Purdon 1981) provides:

The following actions and proceedings musi be com.

menced within two years

(2) An action to recover damages for injuries to the

person or for the death of an individual caused by the

wrongful act of negiect of unlawful violence of neg.

gence of another

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petstuoners, Albert J Ferens and Margaret L. Ferens.

are residents of Pennsylvania. In July of 1981, Mr. Ferens

‘The semes of off the partes to Ge proceedings @ the Court of

Apprals ere ontarned on the (aptrom of the (ger on thes ( own

for both lawsurts was based upon diverwty of ctuzenship

pursuant to 28 U S.C. §1332.

With respect to the Tort Acton, the Respondent did

hot obyect to exther venue or the exercise of in personam

jurtediction over i by a Mississippi court. instead, the

Respondent filed an answer denying liability and ransing

vanous afirmative defenses

Thereafter, on of about October 2, 1985, the Petinon-

ers moved to transfer the Tort Action to the Western Dis

trict of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U S.C. §)404(a) The

Respondent dod not oppose the transfer and on November

&, 1985, the motion was granted

In the Western District of Pennsylvania the Tort

Acton and the Warranty Acton were consolidated for al!

purposes On of about February 20. | 986 the Respondent

fied a motion for summary judgment as to all clams in

both lawsuits, asserting that the clams raned im the Tort

Acvon were barred by Pennsylvania's two-year statute of

limitations apphcable to neghgence and strict hatelty

cauees of action. Ser 4) Pa CSA. §5524(2) (Purdon 198!)

The Distinct Court agreed and granted summary judgment

as to the Tort Action claims only. Pinal judgment was

entered as to these claims purwant to Rule $4(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure '

The Petsnoners appealed to the | nited States ( ourt of

Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit mitially

affirmed the District Court in a 2-| pane! decrmon which

comctuded that the U aited States ( onstituton required the

apphcation of Pennsylvama’s statute of limitations no

matter where the case was brought. Foren © Deere & Co.

"The breech of warrenty clarm: om the Warrenty toe sere aved

perediong the owk ome of the Petomen appre:

819 F.2d 423 (Sed Cir. 1987), waceted and remanded _

US. —. 108 SCL 2862 (1988) However, this Court

granted cervoran and vacated and remanded in hight of its

Opinion in Sue OF Co + Wortmen US . Oe

S.Cu 2117 (1988). Perens + Deere 4 Co. US _. 108

SCL 2862 (1988). On remand, the Third Circuit again

affirmed the Distnct Court ma )-! pane! decmon Feren:

+ Deere & Co. 062 F.2d i (Sed Cir, 1988). In its Opinion

iL The Decision Of The Third Circuit Melding That

The Tramsferee District Court is Net Obdigeeed Te

Apoty The Law Of The Transferer State Whee The

Piaietil ls The Moving Party is te Confit Web

This Coart’s Reasoning te Yee Dusse +. Bervract

The crvpcal msec om thes case o whether the Destrct

( owrt co Penney!) ansa eas ofigated to apply the state ae

that would have heen appbed if there had been no transfer

and the case had been treed om the Southern Dastrct of

Mossesupg ft undrpeted that had the Tort Acbon teen

ined om the Sowthern Destrnct of Messrsmppe the federal

cown there sould Maeve appaed Missesappe 5 statute of hm

tahoms, Misa Code Ann §! 5-149 (1972) and any monoe

for suman jwdigmen: & the Respondent hesed upoe a

statute of lumitaboms argument eoukd have teen dead

See Perens © Deere Co. 62 Fld Ni. M (ed Cor

1988) ‘Accordingly. the Pennsyfwanse Destrict Court's

xrecoe to apply the law of the wansferee state rather than

ube law of the transferor state eas fatal to the Peutbonen

gh ae kere go ermed te eeteaseeee We of smote

vamee Sew 7 ewes « Tapter Marteerry fer $29 Se De Oe OF Mee

eee Saewteeets «© 40 cmd S. bee. S09 Gee 88? Se ee

Piet © Coctewe P06 Se De OD Dee tee POTS Lee @ ee

ane © Teenie Co « Lome 099 Mie O84 Geb-e08 1D) Se 04

(ye Sew athe Keee « Come fee. OO) Fe 4 68) CR Ce

Cowen « Peed Meee Co. 100 F Oe 85, 88 ee Cer PED Pe ee

oo er 05S _ SCR DON? 202) 0, ee eet

eth) eptead Oe (ommtemoneet) of ext es peecee Umi Alger

eee ee ee oe 2

earre cet oe Meee + kt Rowe Newe regard we sggh @e

ome of we ek 6 Mew fe Geer wr acter eed beee we

aget) Mew ) ws veer aeteer of beast Ww Moa (Rene

i Mee

Court's reasoning in Van Dusen ». Barrack, 376 US. 612

(1964).

In Van Dusen the defendants sought to transfer to the

District of Massachusetts forty wrongful death actions

brought im the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the

Id, 376 US. at 699. See also Cowan + Ford Motor Co.

713 F.2d 100, 104 2.6 (Sth Cir. 1983) Uf case s transferred

on defendant's motion, Mississipp: statute of limitations

would still apply), Schreiber v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 611

F.2d 790, 792-793 (10th Cir. 1979) (Mississippi statute of

lumitations would be apphed in case transferred to Kan-

sas). Cf Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.. ——

US. —. 108 S.Ct. 2239, 2245 (1988) (a transfer pursuant

to §1404(a) does not carry with it a change in the applica-

ble law).

In refusing to apply the state law of the transferor

state, as was required in Van Dusen, the Third Circuit

emphasized that }an Dusen involved a transfer sought by

the defendants and noted that this Court limited its hoid-

ing in }an Dusen to defendant-initiated transfers. See F er-

ens v. Deere & Co., 82 F.2d at 34-35. While it is true that

this Court reserved judgment on whether the same consid-

erations would govern a plaintff-initiated transfer. see | an

Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. at 640, the Court's reasoning

and analysis are equally compelling in requiring the appli-

cation of the transferor state's law regardiess of which

party 1s seeking the transfer

The purpose of Section | 404(a) is to allow federal civil

suits to be transferred, in the interest of justice, to the most

tone 6

Section 1404(a) reflects an increased desire to have

federal civil suits tried im the federal system at the

place called for in the particular case by considerations

of convemence and justice. [footnote omitted}

Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 US. at 616.

The idea behind §1404(a) is that where a “civil action™

to vindicate a wrong—however brought in a court—

District Court more convenient than another, the tna!

Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-S85, %64 US. 19, 26

(1960), quoted with approval in Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376

US. at 622.

This remedial purpose 1s available to a plaintiff as well

as a defendant. See Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796

F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir. 1986), Philip Carey Manufacturing

Co. v. Taylor, 286 F.2d 782, 784 (6th Cir.), cert. denied.

366 U.S. 948 (1961), | J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice.

90. 145[4.-2] (2d ed. 1988). Nothing in Section 1404(a) pro-

vides for a change of the applicable law when the case is

transferred by a plaintiff rather than a defendant. The sec-

ton simply provides for a change of venue “(flor the con-

vemence of parties and witnesses, in the interest of jus-

tice.” 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).

There is nothing...in the language or policy of

§1404(a) to justify its use by defendants to defeat the

advantages accruing to plaintiffs who have chosen a

376 US. at 633-46M.

[of §1404(a)) supports

2TH

itt

to a convement

of §1404(a) cer-

the rather startling conclusion

that one might “get a change of law as a bonus for a

change of venue.” [footnote omitted]

id, 376 US. at 635-6%6.

In the present case the Petitioners selected the South-

‘The Respondent ne er challenged evther venue or the exercise of

foregn corporation doing business in Mississipp: was sutyect to sui! in

Mississipp: to the same extent that Mississipp: corporations eer:

regardiess of whether the cause of action accrued in Mississipp: or not

See Miss. Code Ann. §79-1.27 (1972) (repented effective January |.

1 also Miss. Code Ann §79-3-229 (1972) (repeated effective

January |, 1988) In S4 © Construction Co + Douglas, 44 Mins 498.

806, 142 So.dd 33, M (1962) the Missessipp: Supreme Court held that

under Missrssipp: law a Missessipp: state court had pursdic tion to hear

Shewbrooks «© AC and S. Inc, 529 Sold wt 599, Poole + Misstep

Publishers Corp. 208 Mins. 164, 180, 44 So Dd 467, 473 (1950) Comun

+ Ford Motor Co, 694 F 2d 104, 105-106 (Sth Cir, 1982) Sctrether +

dilie- Chalmers Corp. 611 F 2d at 793

transfer’ cannot be used by the Respondent to defeat the

advantages accruing to the Petitioners from thew proper

exercise of the privilege of selecting a forum. No change of

law can result from the change of venue. To hold other-

wise, as the Third Circuit did, is to ignore this Court's

admonition that the federal courts should “ensure that the

‘accident’ of federal diversity yumsdiction does not enable a

party to utilize a transfer to achieve a result in federal court

which could not have been achieved in the courts of the

State where the action was filed.” Van Dusen v. Barrack.

376 US. at 638.

The Petitioners’ Tort Action would not have been

barred by the statute of lumitations in the courts of Missis-

sippt where it was filed. The Respondent cannot be permit-

ted to utilize the transfer to Pennsylvania, which was

"There 6 so question but that the Tort Action met the statutory

requirements for a transfer pursuant to 28 | SC §)404(a) because the

transfer was clearly for the convemence of the parves and ertnessrs and

om the interest of pustice As the affidavit accompanying the Pettuonen

motion for a change of venue demonstrated all eitnesers eth any

knowtedge of the accident of inyunes rewded in the Western Distinct of

Pennsytvamea and all documents relating to the injures were also

located there The Respondent filed no counter affiday it clanming any

incon venience or preyudice from a transfer to Pennsy!vama In fact (he

transfer also comvemenced the Respondent because both parties oul’

be able to reduce thew legal expenses by consolidating the Tom Action

and the Warranty Action ethich were based on essentially one set of

facts The “onterest of pustoe” component of a Section | 404(a) transfer

analyws relates to the efioent administravon of (he coun system (of

fey © Van Dorn Iron Works 796 Fld at 22). in the present cose the

athity to comsoldate the two lawsurts and to have the case tired Dy a

fevieral judge fam jar erth the apphcable substant:.< lae of Penasyiva

ma also favored transferring the case to Pennsytvama (f | an Dusen)

Barrack, 376 US. at 643-646, Cofey © Van Dorn Iron Works 196 F ld

at 22). Thus « wensier ees unquestionably appropriate under 28

USC. §1404(a) Of course, since the Respondent did not oppose the

Peutoners motion for a change of venue or seet reves of the transier

order the propnety of the transfer order 1s not in sue

accomplished for the convemence of the partes and wit-

nesses and in the interest of justice. to achseve a different

result

In holding to the contrary, the mayormty in the Third

Circust apparently based its decis:on on its percepvon that

shopping. As this Court recognized in Van Dusen, how-

ever, federal law gives a plaintiff the right to select the

forum with the most favorable law so long as it 1s a proper

forum in which the case may be brought. Ser Van Dusen +

Barrack, 376 U.S. at 633-635, Ferens ». Deere & Co. 862

F.2d at 35. Both jurisdiction and venue were undeniably

proper in the Southern District of Mississippi. and the

Petsnoners were. therefore. clearly entitled to select Missis-

sapp: as thew forum and gain the advantages of that state's

favorable laws.* The Petitioners’ proper exercise of their

right to select a favorable forum cannot constitute

improper forum shopping

Nor was their motion to transfer umproper forum

attempt to select a forum with a more favorable procedural!

or substantive law. See Perens » Deere & Co. 862 F.2d at

3? (Seitz, J. Dissenting). The Petitioners, however, had

already obtained the advantage of the most favorabiec law

by property selecting Mississipp: as thew forum The Pet:-

toners could have proceeded to tnal on the ments in Mis-

sissipp: without being barred by the statute of limitabons

Thew transfer of the case to Pennsylvania provided them

with no better law. esther procedurally or substantively

“Indeed as Judge Ser rroogmured on hes drssret the Peo tomers

fle surt on Meseesmepg Recause of (he pertinen!

statutes of Wenitations See Perwes © Deere & Co. 86) F Dd at 3° (Sere

Rather. «t samply made the tral of the case more conve-

meni for al! the parnes and witnesses and a more efhoent

uthzanon of yudscaaal resources. Providing for the tnai of

the case im a more convement forum 1s the ver) purpose

for which 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) was enacted. Its use by the

Petinoners for that very purpose. when the resulting trans-

fer did not provide them eith a more advantageous law.

cannot under any carcumstances be construed as inappro-

prnate forum shopping ©

t. The Decision Of The Third Circult Holding That

The Transferce District Coart Is Net Obligated Te

Apply The Law Of The Transferer State Whee The

Piaiatil is The Moving Party is la Conflict With

The Reasening In Decisions Prem Other Circa

Courts Of Appeal

Not only is the decision of the majority in Ferens in

conflict with the reasoning of thes Court in 4 an Dusen. it 1s

also in confict with the reasoning in decrsons from other

circuit courts of appeal Other circuit courts which have

addressed the issue of the apphcabie law following a piain-

uff-:nmated transfer under Secnon | 44(a) have conctuded

that, where the transferor district court was a proper

forum, the law of the transferor state should continue to

apply after the transfer. See Martin » Stokes, 623 F Dd 469.

471 (6th Cir. 1980), Roofing & Sheet Metal Services, Inc. +

LaQuinta Motor Inns, Inc, 689 F 2d 982, 991 2.14 (Lith

ls omsecad the rude anmownced hy the mayornty i ferwrt: efhat

well cosult o@ 2 plasnell’s beeng abte to wer 28 USC §) 44a) os 2 fore

shoppeng device to ota: the apphcanoe of more ta) atte ae As (he

maonty sctnoetedgrs construcboe of Secboe | 4-44) evil allow 2

tows hhgent plarnnf eho Nas fied bes wesw! 8 8 ferem enth iow

fev orette we to ubier Secbor | Gia) to obtarn the advantages of the

more fav orette we of another forum Dy mating 2 transfer \ew fore:

+ beer 2 Co MLE Ma M

Cw 1982) Cl Goeenele © Pelee of 4eeeree Corp. ™™

F.2d 1221, 1224 Om Cie. 1984) peri 7S) Fe 295

(wm Ce 198s)"

Mane + Got ape comtem « comprehrnuve

ne) = of the appx atte we fodboerng transiern ender hook

23 USC. $1404) end & compass ecmen, 28 USC

$) 40mea) gowermeng wansiers efere veneer o omproger

The Court comctuded that the appixette ee follow «

crameter dors mot Gepeed of efether the transfer oo make

om the motes of the plereel ao Gefedent bet Gos

depend epoe efether the transfer of prrwaent to fe toe

1404ta) o¢ Seetoe 40600) A. 623 F Dd ot 471. te reece

om the comtumon the ( owrt remoeed a fodoer

By Severe omeng the Choe’ of we endef) om the Nee of

the sotere of (he Wansier. « rowel & reached Gat «

tee Deere bee Sorte OF Ot ao TD) oe

coetrodhag In the manner the owk ome in the trans

feree Gutrxt court ell be the same as the outcome

wouk! have teen in the viste Courts of the slate ehere

(he toe was ongnally brought

Accor@ingly. we comcbeds that the chowe of We

dependent on the aeture of the tranvier Hf an a toe

wansfervred under |!) Gia) the viste ee of the trans

feron Cown whowhd te appied

i. 623 Fd ot 473" Sew abe fe oe 4 Crash Deer

* astengten, DC on Jemmary 1). 198). 999 F Sepp 33).

MO aS (DDC. 1900) Is oe Richertew Merrell fee, 45

FP Sepp 11 1135 OD Obes 1962) af 72) Fe oe

(eh Cie, 1904) Aleeeeier © Richarew Merrell lee, 4!

P Sepe 91 GDN Y. 1982) | 1 Moore Moores

Federal Practice, @. 145 (4-5) (2d od 1988) Nowe Chee

@ Law @ Federal Court: ater Tremere of Viewer. 6) Cor

oot L. Rew 149, 154-158 (1977)

The Nemeth ( ewet evthowt refereme to efetiter the

See Neteee « Jeeereational Poet Co. 716 Fd 660, 64)

(Hh Clr 1900) Sew ate Bow «© Coterads Outward Bound

Seheet Pac, 822 F Dd 1904 1527 (0eR Cie 1987) Maney

« Emgreme 795 Fog 146), 146) 214 (ht Cee 198%)

Trt feerees Dechonge + Teectel 66) F Sepp 22)

New. 1908) APY Spertrewer, fee «© ple Tee Lad.

661 F Sepp 225 227 GON Y 1968) Were Sect

i ee

eee eh pat: ere Be rene al wel merge Gee

ee ee

he oe Gee bet ee Gere eee ee OP Pe eT) ee

appies to

ti}

[aij

LaQuinta Motor lnm, Inc, 689 F Dd a 991-992, Bll +

Great Seuthwostere Corp. 646 F 2d 1099, 1110 (Sch Cir

1981) Revao © Piper Aiveraf@ Co. 690 F.2d 149, 165 (ied

Cir. 1980), row om other grownds, 454 US 295 (1981)

In the preaent case however venue and juriedac tion

were proper im the Southern District of Misssssipm | he

overwhetming emght of suthornty recognises that where

the ongnal forum «4 proper one 4 comvemence transfer

under Section | 40412) should carry sith 1 so change in the

apphcatte we These ( ourt thowld meue 8 ert of cervoran

on thes case so that the comtrary decison by the mayority in

hewen: may be revered

1. This Case levetves Aw lepertent CQucstion OF Fed-

eral Law Which Should Be Settled By This Court

The ( owrt granted cervoran um | an Dusen because 1

recognised thet the case involved important qursthoms con

cormang the comstruction and operation of s federal vtatutr

USC. 14040) See Ven Deen + Borreet, TOUS

615. One umpertest question efi open by this Court's

Opemon «9 tan Dusen ees ehether the Court's bokding

whowkd Ie catemded to caer where the planet initiates the

tranuier from « proper forum to @ more convement one

Whale most of the carcust courts efach have acddreserd the

pmeue have correctly com tuded that the reasoning and anal

yen ban Dees Com@merts the seme resell erth reagent to

wah pharntefl cnetated transfer the mayorty on /eren: has

aoe come to s contrary comtumon

The construction aad operstoe of 28 USC §) 441)

=)th reagect to plant onetated transiery evil have a ug

ufaent ompet on the fur toning sad administration of

the Shere! court eyetem. The rule senceneed i Pere

oul rewlt mm the congeshoe of cos m dutrxth ehat

although proper as to venue and jurdation have litte

rotator to the undertying cover of a bon what cower of

a bon could more comvenent)) and eficrently be ined in

other appropnate dutrcts Moreover the chill placed

vpoe plant insisted transiery evil reeul! in the greater

hachhoad of multipie ae arte trng fied and ted in dil

ferent detricts even though they arver owt of s unghie wet of

fate

Al present.» plants atelety to wransier «case from o

proper forum toe more Comvensent proper forum erthow!

2 Range 19 the appixatee we depend: ertirety wpe ihe

fonurtows lacsthoe of the more comvensent forum im a co

cwst other than the Therd Curcust These ( owrt thowkd mur

=n of cerborarn om the case wo thal an Umportant queer

of feders! law may be finally ecttied and wo thet enrform:)

may be cvtahinhed a: to the fumctoming of the federal

owrl eyvtem:

For the foregoeng reasome the Prtromery revgerc tfull)

pra) thet thew prisuon for s eri of cervoran te granted

Revgectfull) wien tied

Sramey V. Oorece, Bee

Reween & Tocuee, 1 fe)*

Weems A Preeom Bap

TUCKS? ,ePGRRO Fc

120 Prtsburgh Netonsl Mtg

Prtsburgh Preneytvene | 52).

(412) S@1212

( owmert for Petromen

Alert ) Perens and

Margaret L. Perens bee wute

*Counsel of Record for Pettsomers

JOHN DEERE COMPANY aka

DEERE & COMPANY

(D.C. Civil No. 85-2725)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN

DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

March 5. 1987

Decided May 28. 1987

On Remand from the Supreme ( ourt

of the United States

Before GIBBONS. Chief Judge and SEITZ

and ALDISERT Circuit Judges

(Openion filed Nowember 25 | G88)

Supreme Court for reconsideration in light

Co. o. Wertman. 56 U.S.L.W. 4601 (1988). In Perens o

Deere & Co.. 619 F.2d 42 (34d Cir. 1967) vacated and

(1088). thts court held that «

be constitutionally obligated to apply the Pennsyty ania

statute of limitation. this court never addressed which

forum » statute of limitations applies to the diversity

action as a result of its been flied in the Federal

District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

and transferred pursuant to 26 U.S.C § 1404(a) (1962)

‘|

HAP

HHT

HAE

Because the action was transferred pursuant to 24

U.S.C. 6 1404(a) (1962). from the Southern District of

Hie

pty tt

affirm the district court s judgment

a 8 15-1-49 (1972). We

Eis

iia

TAH Pa

Hi i tit : al Ht

ii i HH

HIGH MN HUTT

iE ee

ead al le i

Ht a Ca

ia a

OHHH tm Het TT eet

Hi tt hy Feet

Hust th clei

iti i

hilly [i

nu iti ll fH]

Hie

tir

Bt jé

uy Hi

(ot kent hee Re we of he

OE 8 pee eet

EN we eret Mee et fe

2 peer to WS © Get cee

eee lm et one

eh ee ee eee

ee ee |

ete hen) heme et we

ee ee ee ed

ee 8 pew mpm or

he eee egreme ee!

a cee

»t

410

fal

itt

Hit

5 aii on aan on

ci He

ee ee le

O00 F REO O10 em Ce OT We hee! ety eee come Cremeeter

ae ee eed ee ee

eee Rew ty ler ee Re Gee bere eneee amet ce etereee of

i omer Meee . Eaducewhe bee f

BO Ge 19TR 6 per corte 690 2 1 Ge Ce ‘now

=~ fetes eee COP ea ee Ce lee

(erm. | fen (0 Aggie ete we « Gere & he —

tht

vib i i tht

Ae a

lin Ht

Mai

Lie

ATE

+2 eke)

HUH

A-12

iit

thee caer (he magortty for

in te earteer apensan om

wethietewe, remean Gad mort fore ackdrees (her

a 14

filing suit in Misetsstppt the ony availabie forum dit

actaan to (he Maddie Deecra' of Peemeyteenas (ery were

@renerd ter the comeenerns of pertare aed elineeers

not constitute forum shopping as that term ss usually

Dad the action of plaintifis in mowing for a transfer

}

eS ON ee

me @ Tecaterre? @ (be eetanee of 6 pleat

A-16

( here af the ned Seates ( curt af Apprats

for the Therd Corwen

AO US Corte CMC Preeeng Prete Pe 315 S68 -coRe)

a1)

Appradix B

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

Albert J. FERENS, ot ax, petitioners, + DEERE 4 COM.

PANY. Ne. 87-477.

Case below, 699 F. Supp. 1484, 619 Fld 42).

June 27, 1988. On petition for ert of certioran to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circunt, The

petion for ent of cervoran = granted The judgment os

vacated and the case is remanded to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circurt for further conmder-

ation in light of Sun Of Company + Wortman, 466 US

awe 108 S.Cu. 2117, 9 L.Ed de _. (1988)

ALBERT J FERENS and

MARGARET - FERENS his wife

DEERE & COMPANY.

(DC Ciwl No 65-1534)

ALBERT J FERENS and

MARGARET L FERENS. his wile

JOHN DEERE COMPANY. ave

DEERE & COMPANY

(D.C. Civil No. 65-2725)

March 5 (987

Before Chief Judge and SEITZ

and ALDISERT. Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed May 28 1987)

a i

fan i

i Sa

HEAR TE

ee ih

————————————————

otrct

weritien

| Pemeree eres Sa 6 OP TET ee OR re mere

wjerewen 62 Pe Comme See fee 6 SDE 2) Porter 1) ote

i i Hi te HT it

; ih Hel Hit au it i!

i aah fi

i A ue

Hel i it :

| i a Hell

Ht ie

HTH mE HH

i a i

nl Ht in i

a ‘tt

peciel tt l

i i i

maida il

Tui iat iii

ul iit lt

fee

i i .

i Hilt inti

+4 138 Boe. 6 (1600) oe

oy wy tty nate te

Hit

E if

cin | it ale I

meu iH ut isl Ht : i

WHE ih rat qt i it

i el lit

fit , ail Ht i

Me! ;

ate

bay ailt tt

! He fei i

ail ae

“il i H

ab at Hie

ET i ant ri

ne ee ee

ee ee

renin Oe ee Naame) Marne ® mos QpEpttee cent often 5

: i

| &

ite

rules

chesne-attow

a Gn ennbes ensuun penenecheust

bey a “eneure thet the ‘sccident of federal

diversity purtediction dors not enable a party to ulilier a

5 on. 643 (9th Cw

-y-*- 4a -y a 608 jab mage

Sammnenehehar teens 1@R0)

a P|

in Van Dusen o Barrack. 376 U.S 612 (1964). the

Supreme Court hetd that the law of the transferor siate

@istrict court in which this

hence its statute of limitations

—— 4 be are when « Gefendant moves for «

transfer to achieve a result in federal court etch couk!

not hawe been actheewed in the courts of (he State where

bound to apply Mississippi»

lt it

Because | betieve s Mississipp: court couk! apply

(ts statute of limitations in (his case | turn now to the

require courts to treat a

Barrack and the Erte doctrine

courtrooms Martine Stakes supra.

Okwre gf the Umnned Seen ( eet of “egret

ow the Thee Coren

the court applied Penneyivania » statute of limitations

Aporadn D

Albert |. PERENS ond u

Feremn be ove

DEERE & COMPANY Defendant

Alert |. PERENS ood u

Deven: te ove

JOHN DEERE COMPANT. ole Deere

fC mee: (Ntemdon

Ce «A Ne OEM OOD

( nated States Destrect ( cert

VD Pemmes ts anes

b> Sto

Stankes VY Ontree Willie A Peeve Petbergh Pa

Fave Murphree james Wilke Ro Rereett late Mew tor

Gary 1 Sieh, Sheri Reged &@ Mabie Pee

OPTNION

COMTLL. Chet fede ~

mary jediguerst @ the steme <agtemerd eer (ert rw

Ome oe sheet fabs 171081 Plc perctrened «pote Der rr

Sadeeteall OOD) ( comune Mer No S08 het ee ma

Commerce Cade 1 Pe CS 1O1008-T Pe

ae @ heat the cme oe

ee ee ee

i i] nt

. it iy |

ie a a |

i ae Mi

ijt Hy

a”

| Cede he or emmetionre: eteete athere we all

cempteed warrants are cw huhed ~ cvpweeemm: Mbe

“woth ol Geel” ow other ee

A ematamg alle the ethentum fd the bwrver to the om biome

Terr emtes amet mabe: phan thet there 6 oe mee ow

2B Whee the beer hates omtereng mts the etre!

Ne he cmrent New whew epee he

4 FB ed Ce 1% eeeeteterer +

Deteeiet + Aecwes Eo 4”

(me he corer ee vate 4 thes peer hee wes ne eee F

Ree Nema gee et teeth

demage: be per & the porwe @ the em memes

Gowns oe preme fare eemereematie bet beettatee of dee

er here thee kee meme ne et

} Eater te porters When 6 mn chem oe ap

Veer « fee Cop. he Se Ml Cea

~-_, Ce ee

occ > & &

—- ewe ee

ee ee

ee ee ee

i ee ee ne

re ee ed ae

or a er i se

ge eater oe me en ee me

oe eater Ge wonder ¢ LPC 8 BR we

ened 6 vere owners ee

a ee ee

te an oad ee me

ee ee ee

ee a

ee ee ed

a oe Ponte Co OOF Be

rn = oO m= ae —_— = &

meted eed 8 pede ommen pertems Ge wor

de ee i ee te

ee ee ee

er i i ere

oe Rowton emell Mew Lewin Meera fee MI

hehe Gh a At he TED te Ge

a ee ee

ee i

en ee uiie@odutie m Goenstebee

eo ery oe ee

es toed ee ee

we 6 Nel ee ep ytte tite prow veenme of the prere thee

ee ee Be

on eee

Net to beang + breach of warrenty action for the bees

ato end Aerommntes Corp « 4] Entren

Comp. oF

tthe tremeter Plasntily ctreseecd the teeseheiet

thew tort chasms eth thew pewdimg (( ( chasms

he haere

arcs tae

eretant caw them:

what prom whee

Mowever the crus af the protiem mm the

fromm Meseseeepps ¢ amemmaione: herr oe eng ctetute

ij it

it |

i, |

he ‘i

THE

tet {itt

Hig Me He

HH. HE HE a tin at

Hi pathy

al lhe

Hit in aH sat

a ian i

Heal Ha HE val St

dancs ieee

it i

Ht ee ei

naa

A. AS!

Appendix F On consideration «hereof, it 1s now here ordered and

adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said Dis:

United States Court of Appeals trict Court entered September 5, 1986, be, and the same is

For Tee Trap Cmcurt hereby affirmed Costs taxed against the appellants All of

the above in accordance with the oprmon of this Court

Ne. 86 1995 ATTEST:

__ ff Saucy Mavos

ALBERT ). FERENS and MARGARET L. FERENS. November 25, 1988 Clerk

his wife

DEERE & COMPANY

(D.C. Civil No. 85-1534)

ALBERT J. FERENS and MARGARET L. FERENS.

hes wife

“ss

JOHN DEERE COMPANY,

a/k/a DEERE & COMPANY

(D.C. Civil No. 85-2725)

ALBERT J. FERENS, and MARGARET L. FERENS.

hrs wife.

Appetiants

(D.C. Ciwil No. 85-156 & 85-2725)

On Appeal From the U aited States District ( cert

Fer the Westera District of Pennsylvania

Present: GIBBONS, Chief Judge. SEITZ and

ALDISERT, Circus Judges

JUDGMENT ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Thos cause came on to be beard on the record from the

Unined States District Court for the Western District of

Pennsy!vamia and was submitted on remand from the

Supreme Court of the Unsted States on August §. | 985

A-$2

Appendix F

United States Court of Appeals

Foe Tee Temo Crecurr

No. 86-3595

ALBERT }. PERENS and

MARGARET L. PERENS., his wile

Appellants

JOHN DEERE COMPANY, a/k/a

DEERE & COMPANY

Appellee

Sar Petition for Rehearing

Present GIBBONS, Chief Judge, SEITZ, HIGGINBOT-

HAM, SLOVITER, BECKER, STAPLETON,

MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON.

SCIRICA, COWEN, and ALDISERT,* Circus

Judges

The petition for rehearing fled by appellant in the

above entitled case having been submitted to the judges

who participated in the decision of this court and to all the

other available circurt judges of the curcurt in regular active

service. and no judge who concurred in the decision hav-

ing asked for rehearing. and a mayonty of the circuit judges

of the corcurt in regular active service not having voted for

rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing 1s

BY THE COURT,

ef Jous J. Geeeows

Dated: January 5, 1989 Chnef Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.