The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction despite plaintiff’s motion to transfer the case to a district where the court would have personal jurisdiction over the defendants and the venue would be proper. In Stanifer v. Brannan ____F.3d ____ (2009) WL 1107910 C.A.6 (Ky.), 2009 plaintiff resided in the Western District of Kentucky and was injured in the Northern District of Alabama, where the two defendants resided and where all the events that gave to the litigation occurred. Plaintiff filed a motion to transfer to the Northern District of Alabama in response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over them. The district court correctly held that it lacked personal jurisdiction, however, denied the plaintiff’s motion to transfer and dismiss the case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In ruling, the court noted that plaintiffs’ counsel may have needed to file his client’s complaint promptly in order to toll the running of the Alabama statute of limitations but pointed out that that necessity would not justify filing a complaint in what amounted to the nearest federal courthouse. In affirming the dismissal the court said:
“In this case, we have little hesitation in affirming the district court’s order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants rather than transferring the case to the district that the plaintiff’s attorney undoubtedly knew was the correct one all along. Specifically, we agree with the court’s determination that the interests of justice swing against the plaintiff and not in his favor. Although the district court was aware of the possible expiration of the Alabama statute of limitations and took that factor into consideration, the court was within its discretion to hold that the plaintiffs, having engaged in the misuse of the court’s processes, should not be permitted by means of a transfer to “resurrect a claim which might be lost due to a complete lack of diligence in determining the proper forum in the first place.” Moreover, it is clear that substantial costs to the judicial system, let alone to the defendants, have resulted from this litigation, including the expenditure of resources in the district court and on appeal.”