In re Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Decision Date10 October 2008
Docket NumberNo. 07-40058.,07-40058.
PartiesIn re: VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., a New Jersey Corporation; Volkswagen AG, a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Germany, Petitioners.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Carl R. Roth, Roth Law Firm, Michael Charles Smith, Siebman, Reynolds, Burg, Phillips & Smith, LLP, Marshall, TX, Jeffrey T. Embry, Hossley & Embry, Tyler, TX, Thomas Andrew Crosley, San Antonio, TX, for plaintiffs-respondents.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, GARZA, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge, joined by EDITH H. JONES, Chief Judge, and JERRY E. SMITH, RHESA H. BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, OWEN, JENNIFER W. ELROD, SOUTHWICK and HAYNES, Circuit Judges:

The overarching question before the en banc Court is whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the transfer of this case from the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas—which has no connection to the parties, the witnesses, or the facts of this case—to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas—which has extensive connections to the parties, the witnesses, and the facts of this case. We grant the petition and direct the district court to transfer this case to the Dallas Division.

I.
A.

On the morning of May 21, 2005, a Volkswagen Golf automobile traveling on a freeway in Dallas, Texas, was struck from behind and propelled rear-first into a flat-bed trailer parked on the shoulder of the freeway. Ruth Singleton was driving the Volkswagen Golf. Richard Singleton was a passenger. And Mariana Singleton, Richard and Ruth Singleton's seven-year-old granddaughter, was also a passenger. Richard Singleton was seriously injured in the accident. Mariana Singleton was also seriously injured in the accident, and she later died as a result of her injuries.

Richard Singleton, Ruth Singleton, and Amy Singleton (Mariana's mother) filed suit against Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen of America, Inc., in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that design defects in the Volkswagen Golf caused Richard's injuries and Mariana's death.

In response to the Singletons' suit, Volkswagen filed a third-party complaint against the driver of the automobile that struck the Singletons, alleging that the Singletons had the ability to sue him but did not and that his negligence was the only proximate cause of the damages.

B.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),1 Volkswagen moved to transfer venue to the Dallas Division. Volkswagen asserted that a transfer was warranted as the Volkswagen Golf was purchased in Dallas County, Texas; the accident occurred on a freeway in Dallas, Texas; Dallas residents witnessed the accident; Dallas police and paramedics responded and took action; a Dallas doctor performed the autopsy; the third-party defendant lives in Dallas County, Texas; none of the plaintiffs live in the Marshall Division; no known party or non-party witness lives in the Marshall Division; no known source of proof is located in the Marshall Division; and none of the facts giving rise to this suit occurred in the Marshall Division. These facts are undisputed.

The district court denied Volkswagen's transfer motion. Singleton v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 2006 WL 2634768 (E.D.Tex. Sept. 12, 2006). Volkswagen then filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the district court gave inordinate weight to the plaintiffs' choice of venue2 and, to state Volkswagen's arguments generally, that the district court failed meaningfully to weigh the venue transfer factors. The district court also denied Volkswagen's motion for reconsideration, and for the same reasons presented in its denial of Volkswagen's transfer motion. Singleton v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 2006 WL 3526693 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 7, 2006).

C.

Volkswagen then petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus. In a per curiam opinion, a divided panel of this Court denied the petition and declined to issue a writ. In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 223 Fed.Appx. 305 (5th Cir.2007). The panel majority held that the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in denying Volkswagen's transfer motion. Judge Garza wrote a dissenting opinion and in it noted that "[t]he only connection between this case and the Eastern District of Texas is plaintiffs' choice to file there; all other factors relevant to transfer of venue weigh overwhelmingly in favor of the Northern District of Texas." Id. at 307 (Garza, J., dissenting).

Volkswagen then filed a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel interpreted the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, granted it, withdrew its decision, and directed the Clerk's Office to schedule the petition for oral argument. A second panel of this Court then heard oral argument on the issues raised for review. The second panel granted Volkswagen's petition and issued a writ directing the district court to transfer this case to the Dallas Division. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 506 F.3d 376 (5th Cir.2007).

The Singletons then filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which the Court granted. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 517 F.3d 785 (5th Cir.2008).

II.

In this opinion, we will first address whether mandamus is an appropriate means to test a district court's ruling on a venue transfer motion. Citing our precedents and the precedents of the other courts of appeals, we hold that mandamus is appropriate when there is a clear abuse of discretion. We note that the Supreme Court has set out three requirements for the issuance of the writ. Of these, we address first whether Volkswagen has established a clear and indisputable right to the writ. We begin by observing that the only factor that favors keeping the case in Marshall, Texas, is the plaintiffs' choice of venue. We discuss this privilege granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and how the privilege is tempered by the considerations of inconvenience under § 1404(a). We demonstrate that a plaintiff's choice of forum under the forum non conveniens doctrine is weightier than a plaintiff's choice of venue under § 1404(a) because the former involves the outright dismissal of a case, and the latter involves only a transfer of venue within the same federal forum. After determining the correct standards to apply in the § 1404(a) analysis, we then consider the showing of inconvenience that Volkswagen has made. We review the district court's ruling and conclude that the district court abused its discretion in denying the transfer. But that does not resolve the case. The question next becomes whether the district court's ruling was a clear abuse of discretion that qualifies for mandamus relief. Concluding that the district court gave undue weight to the plaintiffs' choice of venue, ignored our precedents, misapplied the law, and misapprehended the relevant facts, we hold that the district court reached a patently erroneous result and clearly abused its discretion in denying the transfer. Further finding that the showing satisfies the other requirements of the Supreme Court for mandamus, we conclude that a writ is appropriate under the circumstances of this case. We now begin this discussion.

III.

Because some suggestion is made that mandamus is an inappropriate means to test the district court's discretion in ruling on venue transfers, we will first turn our attention to this subject.

We—and the other courts of appeals that have considered the matter— have expressly "recognized the availability of mandamus as a limited means to test the district court's discretion in issuing transfer orders." In re Horseshoe Entm't, 337 F.3d 429, 432 (5th Cir.2003).3 There can be no doubt therefore that mandamus is an appropriate means of testing a district court's § 1404(a) ruling.

Although the Supreme Court has never decided mandamus in the context of § 1404(a), the Supreme Court holds that mandamus is an appropriate remedy for "exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion." Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the specific standard that we apply here is that mandamus will be granted upon a determination that there has been a clear abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court also has said, however, that courts reviewing petitions for mandamus "must be careful lest they suffer themselves to be misled by labels such as `abuse of discretion' and `want of power' into interlocutory review of nonappealable orders on the mere ground that they may be erroneous." Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 98 n. 6, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed.2d 305 (1967); see Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 382-83, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953) (rejecting reasoning that implied that "every interlocutory order which is wrong might be reviewed under the All Writs Act"). This admonition distinguishes the standard of our appellate review from that of our mandamus review. The admonition warns that we are not to issue a writ to correct a mere abuse of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1960 cases
  • State ex rel. Dep't of Natural Res. v. Wis. Court of Appeals
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • April 3, 2018
    ......WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS, DISTRICT IV, Clean Wisconsin, Inc., Lynda A. Cochart, Amy Cochart, Roger D. DeJardin, Sandra Winnemueller, Chad Cochart and Kinnard ...In In re Volkswagen of America, Inc. , 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008), the Fifth Circuit considered 380 Wis.2d 389 ......
  • Kellogg v. Watts Guerra LLP
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 26, 2022
    ... 41 F.4th 1246 Kenneth P. KELLOGG; Rachel Kellogg; Kellogg Farms, Inc.; Roland B. Bromley; Bromley Ranch, LLC ; John F. Heitkamp; Dean Holtorf; Garth Kruger; Charles ...'s] transfer decision via the issuance of an extraordinary writ .."); see also In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. , 545 F.3d 304, 309 (5th Cir. 2008) ("There can be no doubt therefore that mandamus ......
  • Evergreen Media Holdings, LLC v. Safran Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • December 18, 2014
    ...... March 2010, Plaintiffs entered into an Option Quitclaim Agreement with New Line Productions, Inc. (“New Line”), pursuant to which New Line obtained from Plaintiffs an option on the rights to ... Schlobohm v. Schapiro, 784 S.W.2d 355, 357 (Tex.1990) ; Gonzalez v. Bank of America Ins. Servs., Inc., 454 Fed.Appx. 295, 299–300 (5th Cir.2011), citing Stroman Realty, Inc. v. ... McFadin, 587 F.3d at 759, citing Luv N' Care, 438 F.3d at 470 ( citing World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980) ), and Electrosource, ......
  • In re Micron Tech., Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • November 15, 2017
    ...... , 637 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ; In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. , 545 F.3d 304, 319 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (issuing writ of mandamus regarding venue-transfer order and noting that such writs "are ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
  • How To Get Out Of Dodge: Winning Patent Venue Transfer Strategies And The Federal Circuit
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 25, 2014
    ...choice of venue as a distinct factor in the § 1404(a) analysis." TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1320(citing In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314 n.10 (5th Cir. vii See, e.g., Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32 (U.S. 1955) (noting relationship between Gilbert factors and section 1404(......
  • 2022 Trends And Predictions For Patent Litigation
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 11, 2022
    ...No. 2021-160; In re Quest Diagnostic, No. 2021-193; In re Altassian Corp. PLC, No. 2021-177. 8. See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008); the factors are: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure th......
  • 2022 Trends And Predictions For Patent Litigation
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 11, 2022
    ...No. 2021-160; In re Quest Diagnostic, No. 2021-193; In re Altassian Corp. PLC, No. 2021-177. 8. See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008); the factors are: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure th......
  • Intellectual Property Quarterly Newsletter, Fall 2011 (Part 1)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 28, 2011
    ...within a state, or which is registered to do business in a state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See, e.g., In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en See, e.g., In re Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 314-15; Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219-20 (7th Cir. 1986). Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages After In Re Seagate: An Empirical Study
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-2, January 2012
    • January 1, 2012
    ...for many patentees, particularly nonpracticing entities (“NPEs”)—since the Fifth Circuit’s decision in In re Volkswagen of America, Inc. , 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008), and the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re TS Tech USA Corp. , 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See, e.g. , On Semiconduct......
  • EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OR ORDINARY REMEDY? MANDAMUS AT THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 100 No. 2, October 2022
    • October 1, 2022
    ...[https://perma.cc/Q3YX-GQV6]. (87.) See supra note 78 and accompanying text. (88.) In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). (89.) See Jennifer E. Sturiale, A Balanced Consideration of the Federal Circuit's Choice-of-Law Rule, 2020 UTAH L. REV. 475, 476. (9......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT