Steen v. Murray
955 F. Supp. 2d 1030
D. Neb.2013Background
- Defendants Murray, Boe, and Lamson Dugan & Murray represented the Steens in 2008 to avoid foreclosing on their Iowa farmland; at that time Murray and Boe allegedly were not licensed to practice law in Iowa.
- Defendants drafted a Real Estate Purchase Agreement and an Option to Lease/Purchase that allegedly favored the purchaser, AGR-Keast, while Defendants allegedly also represented AGR-Keast.
- Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to disclose their divided loyalties and failed to provide appropriate care, causing injury and significant litigation expenses.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in July 2012 in the Southern District of Iowa; Defendants moved to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for improper venue to Nebraska.
- The Iowa court granted transfer to Nebraska as improper venue, and the issue became whether to retrans fer the case or grant judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case should be retransferred or retained under § 1404(a) or § 1406(a). | Steens argue for retransferring for convenience. | Murray/Boes argue the Iowa transfer order was not clearly erroneous and should not be revisited. | Plaintiffs’ Motion to Retransfer denied; transfer order affirmed. |
| Which state's choice-of-law rules apply to determine statutes of limitations. | Iowa law should apply per plaintiffs’ claim substantively based there. | Nebraska choice-of-law rules apply because of § 1406(a) transfer. | Nebraska choice-of-law rules apply. |
| Whether plaintiffs’ claims are barred by Nebraska or Iowa statutes of limitations. | Under UCLLA Iowa statutes should govern accrual. | Nebraska limitations apply; accrual occurred in 2003. | Counts time-barred under Nebraska statutes; claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| When did plaintiffs’ causes of action accrue for purposes of limitations? | Accrual after 2006 under UCLLA if applicable. | Accrual occurred in 2003, before July 14, 2006. | Accrual in 2003; Nebraska limitations apply; claims untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodke v. Dahm, 70 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (focus on defendant's activities for venue under § 1391(b)(2))
- Eggleton v. Plasser & Theurer Exp. Von Bahnbaumaschinen Gesellschaft, MBH, 495 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 2007) (transfer choice-of-law rules when venue is transferred for convenience under § 1404(a))
- Wisland v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 119 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 1997) (venue proper where events giving rise to action occurred; applies to transfer decisions under law-of-the-case)
- Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (1990) (law-of-the-case consideration in transfer decisions)
- Nettles v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 55 F.3d 1358 (8th Cir. 1995) (forum-state limitations rules govern accrual in diversity actions)
- Great Plains Trust Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 492 F.3d 986 (8th Cir. 2007) (forum state limitations govern accrual in diversity actions)