Richard "Bud" Steen v. Robert Murray
770 F.3d 698
8th Cir.2014Background
- Lenders threatened foreclosure; Steens retained Omaha firm and Murray to assist.
- Murray and Boe drafted agreements in Nebraska enabling AGR-Keast's transfer and lease structure.
- Transaction closed in Omaha in April 2003; Steens later sued for legal malpractice in July 2012.
- District of Iowa transferred suit to Nebraska under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) as improper venue.
- Nebraska court applied Nebraska statute of limitations to the malpractice claim; Steens argued Iowa law would apply.
- Court concludes venue improper in Iowa and Nebraska choice-of-law governs; claim time-barred under Nebraska law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nebraska choice of law applies to statute of limitations | Steens – Iowa law should apply under venue and choice rules | Murray/Lamson – Nebraska law should apply under §1406(a) transfer | Nebraska choice-of-law rules apply; Nebraska statute governs |
| Whether venue was proper in Iowa under §1391(b)(2) | Venue in Iowa appropriate due to land location and Iowa clients | Wrongful conduct occurred in Nebraska; venue improper in Iowa | Venue improper in Iowa; §1391(b)(2) focused on defendant’s activities in forum state; Nebraska proper |
| Whether the district court properly applied §1406(a) transfer analysis | Transfer to Nebraska should apply Iowa law or retransfer | §1406(a) transfer uses transferee state law for choice-of-law | Nebraska choice-of-law applied; the claim time-barred under Nebraska law |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodke v. Dahm, 70 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (venue focus on defendant’s activities, not plaintiff’s)
- Setco Ent. Corp. v. Robbins, 19 F.3d 1278 (8th Cir. 1994) (venue proper based on substantial events; not best forum)
- Pecoraro v. Sky Ranch for Boys, Inc., 340 F.3d 558 (8th Cir. 2003) (venue in Nebraska supported by defendant’s acts in district)
- Nordbrock v. FDIC, 102 F.3d 335 (8th Cir. 1996) (Restatement §145 approach; distinguishes Whitten rule in unique setting)
- Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc; Follow Woodke vs. Nordbrock interplay)
- Wisland v. Admiral Beverage Co., 119 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 1997) (apply transferee state law in §1406(a) transfers)
- Eggleton v. Plasser & Theurer Export Von Bahnbaumaschinen Gesellschaft, MBH, 495 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 2007) (choice-of-law rules in transfer context)
- Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 900 F.2d 1196 (8th Cir. 1990) (review of venue decisions de novo for transfer issues)