Posnanski v. Gibney
Decision Date | 30 August 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 03-17235.,No. 03-16418.,No. 03-16477.,03-16418.,03-17235.,03-16477. |
Parties | Charles POSNANSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William GIBNEY; Gibney & Associates; XL Specialty Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees. Charles Posnanski, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Gibney; Gibney & Associates, Defendants-Appellants, and XL Specialty Insurance Company, Defendant. Charles Posnanski, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Gibney; Gibney & Associates, Defendants-Appellants, and XL Specialty Insurance Company, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Donald K. Schott and Stacy Y. Hannert, Quarles & Brady LLP, Madison, WI, and Phoenix, AZ, for the plaintiff-appellant-cross-appellee.
Randal N. Arnold, Russell A. Klingaman, and David J. Hanus, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Milwaukee, WI, for the defendants-appellees-cross-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-02-02010-JWS.
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
In this case we consider an issue of first impression in our circuit: May we review the decision of a district court outside our circuit to transfer a case into our circuit? We hold that we may not.
This appeal comes to the court from the District of Arizona, by way of a transfer from the Western District of Wisconsin. Charles Posnanski filed suit in federal district court in Wisconsin against William Gibney, Gibney & Associates, and XL Insurance ("Defendants"), all of whom are residents of Arizona. When defendants sought summary judgment in the Wisconsin district court, the court sua sponte transferred the case to the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), citing the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties. The Arizona district court entered judgment against Posnanski, who appeals a number of issues. In this opinion, we address only our authority to review the transfer from Wisconsin to Arizona.1
Posnanski argues that the Western District of Wisconsin erred when it transferred the case to the District of Arizona. At the outset, it is unclear that we can review the Wisconsin district court's decision. In general, we review a district court's decision to transfer a case under § 1404 for abuse of discretion. See Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 639 (9th Cir.1988). See also King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.1992) ( ); Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir.1990) ( ).
So far as we can determine, we have never addressed whether an out-of-circuit district court's decision to transfer a case to a district court within our circuit is appealable to our circuit, although there is some language suggesting that we can. The confusion stems from our decision in American Fidelity Fire Insurance Co. v. United States District Court, 538 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir.1976). In that case, a cross-claim in a suit pending in the Northern District of California was transferred to the United States Court of Claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(c). In the course of explaining why we would not vacate the transfer order by mandamus, we stated that "a venue transfer between district courts in different circuits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a) can be reviewed as a matter of right in a court of appeals." Id. at 1377. Although we were dealing with an order from a transferor district court within our circuit, rather than from one outside our circuit, and were holding that mandamus would not be granted, we added in a footnote that "[o]n appeal from a final judgment we may exercise our appellate jurisdiction to review a district court's transfer order, even if the transferor court is not within our circuit." Id. at 1377 n. 4 (emphasis added).
We cited two cases in support of this proposition. In the first case, Gulf Research & Dev. Co. v. Harrison, 185 F.2d 457, 458-59 (9th Cir.1950), we did not actually review a transfer order from an out-of-circuit district court as the transferee court. Rather, petitioner sought a writ of mandamus compelling a judge in the Southern District of California to withdraw an order of transfer to the District of Delaware. In the second case, Magnetic Eng'g & Mfg. Co. v. Dings Mfg. Co., 178 F.2d 866, 869 (2d Cir.1950), the Second Circuit discussed whether it could review an appeal of a transfer from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Again, in that case, the transferor court was within the reviewing circuit. Thus, neither of the cases relied upon by American Fidelity actually dealt with a "transferor court ... not within our circuit," 538 F.2d at 1377 n. 4, nor did American Fidelity itself deal with a review of a transfer order from such a court. Our statement in footnote four was both overbroad and dicta.
Ten years after American Fidelity, we recognized that footnote four was dicta. United States v. French, 787 F.2d 1381, 1383 n. 3 (9th Cir.1986) (emphasis added); see also 15 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & EDWARD H. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3846, at 359 (1986) ("There is dicta suggesting a[view that a transfer order is appealable to the transferee circuit], but neither courts has ever in fact reviewed a transfer order issued by a district court in another circuit.").
Footnote four in American Fidelity stands in contrast to the considered views of the commentators and the seven circuits to have addressed this issue. Wright & Miller state the basic rule: "[I]f a transfer was made from a district court in one circuit to a district court in another, the court of appeals in the latter circuit cannot directly review the action of the first district court in ordering transfer." 15 WRIGHT & MILLER § 3855, supra at 474. The First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuits have all held that a transferee circuit does not have jurisdiction to review a transfer order by a transferor court in another circuit. See United States v. Copley, 25 F.3d 660, 662 (8th Cir.1994) () (citations omitted); Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th Cir.1991) (); Lewelling v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc., 879 F.2d 212, 218 (6th Cir.1989) (); Reyes v. Supervisor of DEA, 834 F.2d 1093, 1095 (1st Cir.1987) (); Roofing & Sheet Metal Servs. Inc. v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc., 689 F.2d 982, 986, 989(11th Cir.1982) () (citations omitted); Linnell v. Sloan, 636 F.2d 65, 67 (4th Cir.1980) (); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 924 (D.C.Cir.1974) (en banc) (); Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Sweetheart Plastics, Inc., 436 F.2d 1180, 1188 (7th Cir.1971) () ; Purex Corp. v. St. Louis Nat'l Stockyards Co., 374 F.2d 998, 1000 (7th Cir.1967) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cardona v. U.S. Dist. Court for the N. Dist. of Cal. (In re U.S. Dep't of Educ.)
...not have jurisdiction to review the procedural or substantive propriety of the Florida court's transfer order. See Posnanski v. Gibney , 421 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[N]o principle in American law ... permits a circuit court of appeals to review, as such, a transfer order issued by a......
-
Corley v. Long-Lewis, Inc.
...our sister circuits that an out-of-circuit transfer order is not reviewable on appeal in the transferee circuit. See Posnanski v. Gibney , 421 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Copley , 25 F.3d 660, 662 (8th Cir. 1994) ; Lewelling v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc. , 879 F.2d ......
-
U.S. Dep't of Educ. v. United States Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal. (In re U.S. Dep't of Educ.)
...do not have jurisdiction to review the procedural or substantive propriety of the Florida court's transfer order. See Posnanski v. Gibney, 421 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[N]o principle in American law . . . permits a circuit court of appeals to review, as such, a transfer order issued ......
-
In re Mathias
...Robreno's original transfer decision. Alexander v. Erie Ins. Exch. , 982 F.2d 1153, 1156 (7th Cir. 1993) ; see also Posnanski v. Gibney , 421 F.3d 977, 980–81 (9th Cir. 2005) ; SongByrd, Inc. v. Estate of Grossman , 206 F.3d 172, 177 (2d Cir. 2000) ; Hill v. Henderson , 195 F.3d 671, 677 (D......