Paul Bockman v. First American Marketing Corp
459 F. App'x 157
3rd Cir.2012Background
- FAMC and FACC are Maryland corporations with principal offices in Denver, Colorado, and shareholders filed a December 21, 2010 derivative suit against the Corporations and their officers/directors.
- Plaintiffs are a group of shareholders; the Individual Defendants include Margaret Hall, Henry Hall, Jeffrey Hall, Stephen McCollom, Theodore Somerville, Darwin Webley, and Dennis Haley.
- The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the complaint for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3).
- Defendants provided an affidavit (McCollom) stating the corporations’ principal place of business is Denver, Colorado; the corporations are Maryland entities; board meetings and officer duties occur in Colorado; no Pennsylvania meetings by officers/directors.
- Plaintiffs relied on a 2005 Opposition Brief detailing Pennsylvania contacts, but the district court treated that brief as insufficient to establish venue under § 1391(a)(2).
- The court analyzed venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), determining that no substantial events giving rise to the claims occurred in Pennsylvania, and affirmed dismissal (with transfer option under § 1406(a)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper under § 1391(a)(2). | Plaintiffs contend a substantial part of events occurred in Pennsylvania due to revenue, employees, and shareholders there. | Defendants contend the alleged wrongful acts occurred in Colorado, with Pennsylvania contacts only general, not event-specific. | Venue improper; no substantial events in Pennsylvania; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Martino, 36 F.3d 291 (3d Cir. 1994) (location of events giving rise to claims governs venue, not defendant’s contacts)
- Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner, 417 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 2005) (significant events or omissions must occur in the district for venue)
- Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer, 321 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2003) (only events directly giving rise to a claim are relevant for venue)
- Setco Enters. Corp. v. Robbins, 19 F.3d 1278 (8th Cir. 1994) (rejects weight-of-contacts approach for § 1391(a)(2))
- Weis-Buy Servs., Inc. v. Paglia, 411 F.3d 415 (3d Cir. 2005) (statute requires substantial events; limitations period noted)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) (transfer in lieu of dismissal is appropriate to avoid injustice)
- Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173 (1979) (venue aims to protect defendant from inconvenient forums)
- Weis-Buy Servs., Inc. v. Paglia, 411 F.3d 415 (3d Cir. 2005) (venue analysis focuses on events giving rise to the claim)