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
In Korby v. Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Supply Chain, Inc., Judge Sánchez denied the plaintiff's motion to send the case back to Pennsylvania state court and transferred the wrongful death lawsuit to a federal court in Minnesota, where the fatal motorcycle accident occurred.
Personal representatives of decedents' estates pursuing wrongful death claims in federal court; litigants facing disputes over corporate citizenship and the forum defendant rule; plaintiffs who file suit in a state other than where the underlying events occurred; parties contesting venue and transfer to a different federal district.
What happened
In Korby v. Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Supply Chain, Inc., Nancy Korby, acting as personal representative of her late husband Michael Wayne Korby's estate, sued FedEx entities in Philadelphia County state court over a July 22, 2023 fatal motorcycle accident in Otter Tail County, Minnesota. The defendants moved the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, citing diversity jurisdiction — meaning the parties are citizens of different states — and Korby then asked the court to send it back to state court, arguing that one FedEx defendant was actually headquartered in Pennsylvania, which would have barred removal under the 'forum defendant rule' (a rule that prevents a defendant from moving a case to federal court in its home state).
The core dispute over remand hinged on whether FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. is a Pennsylvania citizen. Korby pointed to a Pittsburgh address in federal motor carrier safety records and a FedEx parent company annual securities filing referencing a Pittsburgh-based 'Supply Chain' operation. The defendants countered with a sworn declaration from a senior corporate officer stating that FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee, and further explained that the annual filing referenced a different corporate entity — FedEx Supply Chain Distribution System, Inc. — not the named defendant. The defendants also moved to transfer the case to Minnesota, noting that the accident, all witnesses, emergency responders, and physical evidence were located there, not in Pennsylvania.
Judge Sánchez ruled in favor of the defendants on both issues. The court found that the sworn declaration established FedEx Supply Chain, Inc.'s principal place of business as Tennessee, that the public records Korby cited did not override that evidence, and that complete diversity existed among the parties — so the motion to remand was denied. The court also found that venue (the proper location for the lawsuit) was improper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because no substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there; the accident happened entirely in Minnesota. The case was therefore transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The detailed version
- Nancy Korby, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Wayne Korby, Deceased v. Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Supply Chain, Inc., No. 25-4811 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 18, 2026)
- Juan R. Sánchez
Background
On July 22, 2023, Michael Korby was fatally injured in a motorcycle collision in Otter Tail County, Minnesota. A driver named Jacob Walls, allegedly operating a vehicle owned or assigned by the FedEx defendants, attempted a turn onto Jewett Lake Road while allegedly distracted by an iPad, striking Korby. Nancy Korby, as personal representative of Michael Korby's estate, filed a wrongful death action in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on July 22, 2025, against Federal Express Corporation and FedEx Supply Chain, Inc.
Defendants removed the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA) on August 21, 2025, invoking diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). They asserted that Plaintiff is a Minnesota citizen and both defendants are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business in Tennessee.
Motion to Remand
Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that the 'forum defendant rule' under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) barred removal because FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. was allegedly a Pennsylvania citizen. The forum defendant rule prohibits removal based on diversity jurisdiction when any properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state in which the suit was filed. Plaintiff cited two pieces of evidence: (1) a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) database listing showing a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania address for FedEx Supply Chain, Inc., and (2) a FedEx Corporation annual report (Form 10-K) referencing a Pittsburgh-based 'Supply Chain' operation.
Defendants responded with 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. Defendants also argued the 10-K referenced a distinct entity — FedEx Supply Chain Distribution System, Inc. — not the named defendant.
Applying the 'nerve center' test from Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 92-93 (2010), the court held that a corporation's principal place of business is where its high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate activities. The court found that the sworn Eslami declaration established Memphis, Tennessee as FedEx Supply Chain, Inc.'s nerve center; that the 10-K pertained to a different corporate entity; and that operational addresses in motor carrier safety databases do not demonstrate where corporate governance is exercised. Because Plaintiff did not rebut the declaration with comparable corporate governance evidence, defendants carried their burden to establish complete diversity. Plaintiff's motion to remand was denied.
Motion to Transfer
Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or, alternatively, to transfer to the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (transfer when venue is improper) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (transfer for convenience of parties and witnesses even when venue is proper).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. The court found that all relevant events — the accident, the investigation by the Minnesota State Highway Patrol, emergency response, and the death of Michael Korby — occurred in Minnesota, not in Pennsylvania. Accordingly, venue was improper under § 1391(b)(2) in the EDPA. The court also found venue improper under § 1391(b)(1) because defendants do not reside in Pennsylvania for venue purposes, and § 1391(b)(3) (a fallback provision) was unavailable because proper venue existed in Minnesota. The court transferred the case to the District of Minnesota under § 1406(a) in the interest of justice.
Alternatively, the court analyzed transfer under § 1404(a) using the multi-factor balancing test from Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995), weighing private factors (plaintiff's forum choice, defendant's preference, where the claim arose, convenience of parties and witnesses, access to proof) and public factors (court congestion, local interests). The court found that: the crash occurred in Otter Tail County, Minnesota; witnesses including crash scene witnesses, the Minnesota State Highway Patrol, ambulance services, and a local funeral home are located in Minnesota and North Dakota; Plaintiff herself is a Minnesota citizen; and Minnesota has a strong local interest in adjudicating a fatal accident on its roads. While the court acknowledged the reduced — but not eliminated — weight given to Plaintiff's choice of forum when operative facts occurred elsewhere, it concluded the Jumara factors strongly favored transfer.
Outcome
- Plaintiff's motion to remand: Denied - Defendants' motion to transfer: Granted — case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.