Austin is a South Carolina resident and had given birth to her daughter in that state. Should the case be transferred to a South Carolina venue? Why or why not? [Austin v. Nestle USA, Inc., 677 F.Supp2d 1134 (D. Minn. 2009)]

Venue. In state court, a venue transfer is from one county to another in the SAME state; Michigan’s jurisdiction ends where Michigan does. In the federal court system, venue can be transferred anywhere in the country since the federal jurisdiction only ends where America does. That said, venue transfers, whether in a state or in the federal system, must pass certain substantive tests. Therefore, since the plaintiff chose the venue, the question would be “why would she choose a place so far from home?”nnBrandy Austin used powdered infant formula manufactured by Neslte, USA, Inc. to feed her infant daughter. Austin claimed that a can of the formula contaminated with Enterobacter sakazakii bacteria, causing severe injury to the infant. The bacteria can cause infections of the bloodstream and the central nervous system—in particular, meningitis (inflammation of the tissue surrounding the brain or spinal cord.) Austin filed an action against Nestle in Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota. Nestle argued for a change of venue because the alleged harm occurred in South Carolina. Austin is a South Carolina resident and had given birth to her daughter in that state. Should the case be transferred to a South Carolina venue? Why or why not? [Austin v. Nestle USA, Inc., 677 F.Supp2d 1134 (D. Minn. 2009)] (See Basic Judicial Requirements)