Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-2991 McMasters v. U.S.

By: dmc-admin//August 20, 2001//

00-2991 McMasters v. U.S.

By: dmc-admin//August 20, 2001//

Listen to this article

“McMasters’ assertion that Ninth Circuit precedent applies in this case is incorrect. Although the law of the transferor court continues to apply when a diversity case is transferred from one district court to another under sec. 1404(a), see Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 639, 84 S. Ct. 805, 11 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1964), the transferee court is usually ‘free to decide [federal issues] in the manner it views as correct without deferring to the interpretation of the transferor circuit,’ In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d 1171, 1174 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Ruth B. Ginsburg, J.) (internal quotation omitted), aff’d on other grounds sub nom. Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 490 U.S. 122, 109 S. Ct. 1676, 104 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1989). On a limited number of federal issues, a court may be required to apply the law of a different circuit to cases which have been transferred under sec. 1404(a), see Eckstein v. Balcor Film Investors, 8 F.3d 1121, 1126-27 (7th Cir. 1993), but the general rule is that ‘[a] single federal law implies a national interpretation . . . . [T]he norm is that each court of appeals considers the question independently and reaches its own decision, without regard to the geographic location of the events giving rise to the litigation.’ Id. at 1126; see also In re Korean Air Lines Disaster, 829 F.2d at 1175. (‘[B]ecause there is ultimately a single proper interpretation of federal law, the attempt to ascertain and apply diverse circuit interpretations simultaneously is inherently self- contradictory.’). Although ‘Congress might require one federal court to apply another’s interpretation of federal law . . . sec. 1404(a) does not itself do so.’ Eckstein, 8 F.3d at 1126. Only where the law of the United States is specifically intended to be geographically non-uniform should the transferee court apply the circuit precedent of the transferor court… Unlike the statute at issue in Eckstein, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not intended to be geographically non-uniform. Thus, the district court properly applied Seventh Circuit precedent in evaluating whether McMasters’ case should be dismissed for failure to serve the United States Attorney.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kocoras, J., Kanne, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests