## Facts

- A rear-end collision on a Dallas, Texas freeway propelled a Volkswagen Golf into a parked trailer; a passenger was seriously injured and a child passenger later died.
- The injured passenger and the child’s family sued Volkswagen of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG for alleged design defects causing the injuries and death.
- Volkswagen filed a third-party claim against the driver who rear-ended the Golf, alleging his negligence was the sole proximate cause.
- The accident occurred in Dallas; the vehicle was purchased in Dallas; key fact witnesses, first responders, investigators, and treating medical providers were in or near Dallas.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, roughly 155 miles from Dallas, despite minimal connection between Marshall and the dispute.
- Volkswagen moved to transfer to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); the district court denied transfer and reconsideration, giving substantial weight to plaintiffs’ forum choice.
- Volkswagen sought mandamus to compel transfer; after panel proceedings, the Fifth Circuit reheard the matter en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly abused its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) by denying transfer from the Marshall Division to the Dallas Division.
2. Whether the prerequisites for mandamus relief were met, including a clear and indisputable right to transfer and lack of an adequate alternative remedy.

## Decision

- The en banc Fifth Circuit granted the petition for writ of mandamus.
- The court held the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying the § 1404(a) transfer motion.
- The court directed the district court to transfer the case to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas.
- The court concluded the private- and public-interest factors strongly favored Dallas and that plaintiffs’ forum choice could not overcome that showing.
- The court found all mandamus requirements satisfied because post-judgment appeal would not adequately remedy the burdens of litigating in a substantially less convenient forum.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), transfer turns on convenience of parties and witnesses and the interest of justice, evaluated through private- and public-interest factors applicable to both inter-district and inter-division transfers.
- Plaintiff’s choice of forum under § 1404(a) is a factor, not a near-controlling consideration; it may be outweighed when the transferee forum is clearly more convenient.
- Private-interest factors include relative ease of access to proof, availability of compulsory process, cost of attendance for willing witnesses (including the Fifth Circuit’s “100-mile rule”), and other practical trial considerations; convenience of non-party witnesses is often highly significant.
- Public-interest factors include local interest in deciding localized controversies, administrative difficulties from court congestion, and forum familiarity with governing law.
- Mandamus may issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion in transfer decisions when (1) there is no other adequate means of relief, (2) the right to relief is clear and indisputable, and (3) issuance is appropriate under the circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit ordered transfer by mandamus because the chosen forum had effectively no meaningful connection to the dispute, while Dallas had concentrated witnesses, proof, and local interest, making the district court’s refusal to transfer a clear abuse of discretion under § 1404(a).


In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)