Evan v. Diners Club International Ltd
2:16-cv-00178
N.D. Ind.Oct 24, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Christine and George Evan (pro se) moved to transfer this case from the Northern District of Indiana to the District of Nevada under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), asserting they moved to Las Vegas and that Nevada is a proper forum.
- Defendant (identified as BMO Harris Bank N.A.) opposed the transfer and denied consent to venue change.
- The court assumed without deciding that venue in the Northern District of Indiana is proper but examined whether venue would be proper in Nevada.
- The Amended Complaint did not show that a substantial part of the events occurred in Nevada; the dispute therefore centered on whether Nevada could exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
- Plaintiffs argued Nevada was proper because Defendant has card members, branches, and ATMs in Nevada; Defendant provided an affidavit stating its principal place of business is Chicago and denying branches in Nevada.
- The court found Nevada lacks both specific and general personal jurisdiction over Defendant, so venue in Nevada was improper and transfer was denied; the court also denied Defendant’s motion for leave to file a sur-response as unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue may be transferred to District of Nevada under § 1404(a) | Transfer is proper because Plaintiffs moved to Nevada and Defendant has substantial presence there (members, branches, ATMs) | Defendant does not consent; its HQ/principal place is in Illinois and Nevada lacks jurisdiction | Denied — Nevada is not a proper venue because personal jurisdiction over Defendant in Nevada is lacking |
| Whether Nevada has specific personal jurisdiction | Defendant’s contacts with Nevada (cards, branches, ATMs) give rise to the suit | Defendant disputes material contacts and ties the case to Illinois | Denied — Plaintiffs did not show the suit arose from defendant’s Nevada contacts |
| Whether Nevada has general personal jurisdiction | Extensive business presence in Nevada makes Defendant "at home" there | Corporate "at home" status is limited to state of incorporation or principal place (or bank’s main office); Defendant’s main office is in Illinois | Denied — contacts insufficient to render Defendant "at home" in Nevada |
| Whether defendant may file a sur-response to address alleged inaccuracies | N/A (Plaintiffs filed a reply containing assertions) | Sur-response not necessary for ruling on transfer motion | Denied — sur-response unnecessary for decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217 (7th Cir. 1986) (elements for § 1404(a) transfer analysis)
- Heller Financial, Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286 (7th Cir. 1989) (burden on movant to show transferee forum is clearly more convenient)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) (general personal jurisdiction requires contacts rendering defendant essentially at home in forum)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (2011) (framework for general jurisdiction)
- BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) (even extensive in-state operations may be insufficient for general jurisdiction)