GARR KING, District Judge
Plaintiff Steven Olea used to work for defendant Southwest Distributing Co. ("SWD"), a company that sells chemical systems and equipment related to polyurethane. Olea alleges several claims against SWD based on his alleged exposure to hazardous chemicals on two occasions in July 2002 after being ordered to work near the chemicals without appropriate safety equipment. Before the court is SWD's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Failure to State a Claim, and Improper Venue (#7). For the reasons stated below, I transfer the action because of improper venue and do not reach the remaining arguments.
ALLEGED FACTS
Olea alleges that he was employed by SWD, a company located in Arizona, but worked from his home office in Oregon as a Technical Sales Manager and spent the majority of his work time in Oregon. While on the job and working in Arizona, Olea was exposed to hazardous chemicals on two separate occasions in July 2002 and suffered permanent injuries. He alleges claims against SWD and two of his managers for negligence, negligence per se, a violation of Oregon's Employer Liability Law, and for loss of his personal property, a manufacturing mold owned by Olea and stored in Arizona at SWD's laboratory. Olea alleges that SWD destroyed or discarded the mold when it terminated him.
DISCUSSION
Although defendants make arguments based on lack of personal jurisdiction, the exclusivity of workers' compensation laws in Oregon and Arizona, and a secrecy agreement which SWD contends requires dismissal of the property claim, an analysis of the venue statute resolves this motion.
The venue statute states:
A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
28 USC § 1391(a).
Subsection (1) would require the action to be brought in the District of Arizona because SWD and the two individual defendants reside there. Subsection (2) would also require the action to be brought in the District of Arizona because that is where the chemical exposures occurred and where the mold was destroyed. Since there is a district in which the action can be brought, Arizona, subsection (3) would not apply and I do not need to determine if this court has personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants.
Olea argues that if the Oregon Workers' Compensation Board issues a final order that he is an Oregon worker, venue is proper in the District of Oregon because defendants would be subject to the laws of this forum. I agree that the choice of law issue must be addressed but either district can resolve that issue and both districts can apply the law of either state.
Accordingly, I conclude that venue is only proper in the District of Arizona and is improper in the District of Oregon. I also conclude that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this action to Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and not to dismiss it.
CONCLUSION
SWD's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Failure to State a Claim, and Improper Venue (#7) is granted. This action is transferred to the District of Arizona.
IT IS SO ORDERED.