Here, Defendants challenge venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) rather than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). Although many federal courts hold that waiver under Rule 12 applies equally to § 1406(a), there appears to be some disagreement on the issue. Compare, e.g., Gardner v. Mylan Inc., No. 2:09-cv-01289, 2010 WL 2595114, at *2 (S.D.W.Va. June 24, 2010) (indicating that Rule 12 waiver guidelines apply to § 1406(a)); Bosse v. Mertoff, No. 05-CV-02170, 2007 WL 484590, at *2 (D.Colo. Feb. 9, 2007) (“[T]here is significant authority for the proposition that, once a defense of improper venue is waived, a defendant is also foreclosed from seeking a transfer under § 1406.”); with, e.g., Johnson v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 12 C 5842, 2013 WL 323404, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 25, 2013) (<HOLDING>). Regardless, it is clear that a party can
holding that transfer most appropriate under 28 usc  1406a holding that a partys repeated representations that venue was proper in one forum waived its right to bring a subsequent motion under 28 usc  1406a challenging venue holding that motion to transfer also must show either that county where action is pending is improper or that venue is mandatory in another county recognizing conflicting case law regarding whether waiver  under rule 12b3 extends to a request for a transfer under  1406a given that such a transfer is premised on venue being improper in this district holding that transfer was proper remedy for improper venue even though the issue of transfer was not raised until the motion hearing in circuit court