Korby v. Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Supply Chain
Nancy Korby, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Wayne Korby, Deceased v. Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Supply Chain, Inc.
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:26-cv-01554
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 7
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Korby v. Federal Express Corporation, Judge Sánchez denied remand to state court and transferred the wrongful death case to Minnesota, where the fatal crash occurred.
Families or estates of accident victims who file wrongful death suits against corporate defendants in a state where the accident did not occur. This opinion illustrates that a corporation's citizenship for venue and removal purposes is determined by sworn corporate evidence about its nerve center, not by database listings or annual report references to similarly named entities, and that courts will transfer cases to the state where the accident actually happened when all key witnesses and evidence are there.
What happened
Nancy Korby, as personal representative of the estate of Michael Wayne Korby, sued Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. in Philadelphia state court over a July 2023 motorcycle crash in Minnesota that killed Michael Korby. The defendants removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Korby moved to send it back to state court, arguing that FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. was a Pennsylvania company and therefore barred from removing to a Pennsylvania federal court under the 'forum defendant rule.' The defendants also moved to dismiss or transfer the case to Minnesota.
The central dispute over remand turned on where FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. has its headquarters. Korby pointed to a federal motor carrier database listing a Pittsburgh address and a FedEx parent company annual report referencing a Pittsburgh-based 'Supply Chain' entity. The defendants countered with a sworn declaration from a senior FedEx corporate officer stating that FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, and argued the annual report referenced a different corporate entity entirely. The court found the defendants' sworn corporate evidence more persuasive and concluded that FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. is a Tennessee — not Pennsylvania — company, meaning the forum defendant rule did not apply and federal diversity jurisdiction was proper.
Judge Sánchez denied Korby's motion to remand and granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The court found that venue was improper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims — the crash, the investigation, the emergency response — occurred in Pennsylvania; all of it happened in Minnesota. The court also found that even if venue had been technically proper in Pennsylvania, the balance of convenience and fairness factors strongly favored Minnesota, where the accident occurred, where key witnesses are located, and where Korby herself lives.
The detailed version
- Korby v. Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Supply Chain · No. 0:26-cv-01554
- Eric Tostrud
- Feb. 18, 2026
Background
On July 22, 2023, Michael Wayne Korby was riding a motorcycle on County Highway 22 in Otter Tail County, Minnesota. According to the complaint, Jacob Walls — driving a vehicle owned, leased, or assigned by the defendants — attempted a turn onto Jewett Lake Road and collided with Korby after becoming distracted by an iPad. Korby was killed at the scene.
Nancy Korby, as personal representative of Michael Korby's estate, filed a wrongful death action on July 22, 2025, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania, naming Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. as defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court on August 21, 2025, asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) — the federal statute allowing federal courts to hear cases between citizens of different states involving more than $75,000. The defendants stated that Korby is a Minnesota citizen, and both defendants are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business in Tennessee.
The Two Motions
Plaintiff moved to remand (send back) the case to state court, arguing that the removal violated the "forum defendant rule," which bars removal to federal court when any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the suit was filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Plaintiff contended FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. is actually headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, relying on: (1) a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) database listing a Pittsburgh address for FedEx Supply Chain, Inc.; and (2) a Form 10-K annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by FedEx Corporation showing a Pittsburgh address for an entity called "Supply Chain."
Separately, the defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, arguing all relevant events, witnesses, and evidence were in Minnesota.
Motion to Remand: Forum Defendant Rule
The forum defendant rule bars removal when a defendant is a citizen of the forum state — here, Pennsylvania. A corporation's citizenship is determined by its state of incorporation and its "principal place of business," which under Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010), is the corporation's "nerve center" — the place where its high-level officers direct and coordinate the company's activities.
The defendants submitted a sworn declaration from Shahram A. Eslami, Staff Vice President for Securities and Corporate Law at FedEx Corporation, stating that FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee. The court found this dispositive. The Pittsburgh address in the FMCSA database was characterized as an operational address, not evidence of where corporate officers direct the company — which is the relevant inquiry under Hertz. As for the 10-K annual report, the court accepted defendants' explanation that the Pittsburgh-based "Supply Chain" entity referenced there is FedEx Supply Chain Distribution System, Inc. — a different corporate entity from the named defendant FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. The plaintiff did not rebut the defendants' sworn declaration with comparable corporate governance evidence.
The court held that the defendants carried their burden to establish complete diversity: Korby is a Minnesota citizen; both defendants are citizens of Delaware (incorporation) and Tennessee (principal place of business). Because FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. is not a Pennsylvania citizen, the forum defendant rule did not apply. The motion to remand was denied.
Venue and Transfer
Legal Standards for Venue
Federal venue in civil cases is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which allows suit in: (1) a district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) if no district satisfies (1) or (2), any district where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. If venue is improper, a court may dismiss the case or transfer it in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Even if venue is proper, a court may transfer for the convenience of parties and witnesses under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), weighing factors identified in Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995).
The Court's Venue Analysis
The court found venue improper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on all three grounds under § 1391(b):
- § 1391(b)(2): No substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Pennsylvania. The crash, investigation, emergency response, and related evidence were all in Minnesota. - § 1391(b)(1): The defendants do not "reside" in Pennsylvania for venue purposes on this record. - § 1391(b)(3): Because venue is proper in the District of Minnesota under § 1391(b)(2), the fallback provision of § 1391(b)(3) cannot be used to rescue Pennsylvania venue.
The court concluded transfer to the District of Minnesota under § 1406(a) serves the interest of justice because the accident occurred there and the case could properly have been filed there.
Alternative Transfer Analysis Under § 1404(a)
Even assuming venue were proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the court found that the Jumara factors strongly favored transfer to Minnesota:
- The crash occurred in Otter Tail County, Minnesota. - Key witnesses — including crash scene witnesses, Minnesota State Highway Patrol, ambulance services, and a local funeral home — are in Minnesota and North Dakota. - Plaintiff herself is a Minnesota citizen. - Minnesota has a strong local interest in adjudicating a fatal accident on its roads investigated by its authorities. - The plaintiff's choice of Pennsylvania forum received reduced weight because the operative facts occurred outside Pennsylvania.
The court held the defendants met their burden to show transfer is appropriate under § 1404(a) as well.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand and granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The court did not reach defendants' motion to dismiss for improper venue, instead opting to transfer in the interest of justice.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.