Quelet v. Preston et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake on 9/24/12. (mps, Deputy Clerk) [Transferred from Maryland on 9/25/2012.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JEFFREY J. QUELET
v.

VERNON PRESTON et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. CCB-12-1876

MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Jeffrey Quelet has brought this medical malpractice action against the
defendants for treatment he received following injuries from an automobile accident. The
defendants filed various motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See ECF Nos. 17,
21, 23, 26.) Quelet responded by consenting to a transfer to the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
(ECF No. 29), a district in which the defendants admit they are subject to personal jurisdiction.
Subsequently, defendant Hanover Rehabilitation Center filed a reply insisting that the case be
dismissed and that transfer would be improper. (ECF No. 30.)
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court will order the transfer of this case to the Middle
District of Pennsylvania. Accepting the defendants’ contention that this court lacks personal
jurisdiction, transfer is not improper because § 1406(a) has long been interpreted as a means to
cure impediments, including lack of personal jurisdiction, that would prevent an action from
going forward in the district where it was originally brought. In re Carefirst of Maryland, Inc.,
305 F.3d 253, 255-56 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing Porter v. Groat, 840 F.2d 255, 258 (4th Cir. 1988)
(“[W]e adopt as the rule in this circuit the reading of § 1406(a) that authorizes the transfer of a
case to any district, which would have had venue if the case were originally brought there, for
any reason which constitutes an impediment to a decision on the merits in the transferor district

but would not be an impediment in the transferee district.”)); see also Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman,
369 U.S. 463, 465-67 (1962). Section 1406(a) provides that a district court may, “in the interest
of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” The
Middle District of Pennsylvania is the proper venue for transfer because it is where all of the
defendants are located. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Transfer will better further the interests of
justice than the delay that would be necessitated by dismissal.
A separate order follows.

9/24/12
Date

/s/
Catherine C. Blake
United States District Judge