Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JUNIOUS v. FOOD TRANSP. INC.

September 23, 1966

Lee JUNIOUS et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
FOOD TRANSPORT INCORPORATED, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: FOLLMER

 FOLLMER, District Judge.

 This matter is presently before the Court on (1) motion of plaintiffs for change of venue under the Act of June 25, 1948 (28 U.S.C. § 1404), and (2) motion of defendant to dismiss the action of David Jackson and Grace Jackson as parents and next friend of Darin Jackson, a minor.

 According to the pleadings, this accident occurred in South Carolina. The plaintiffs are all residents of the District of Columbia. The defendant is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in York, Pennsylvania, which is in this district.

 Plaintiffs originally brought this suit in the United States District Court in and for the District of Columbia. Defendant's motion to quash the service of process on the ground that no proper service could be made on defendant in the District of Columbia suit, was sustained by the Court. Thereafter the instant action was instituted in this district. Now plaintiffs seek to have this action returned to a district which has already decided it did not have jurisdiction.

 The Act above referred to provides, inter alia:

 
"(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought."

 In Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-344, 80 S. Ct. 1084, 1089, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1254 (1960), the Court said, inter alia:

 
"* * * But the power of a District Court under § 1404(a) to transfer an action to another district is made to depend not upon the wish or waiver of the defendant but, rather, upon whether the transferee district was one in which the action 'might have been brought' by the plaintiff.
 
* * *
 
"We agree with the Seventh Circuit that:
 
"'If when a suit is commenced, plaintiff has a right to sue in that district, independently of the wishes of defendant, it is a district "where (the action) might have been brought." If he does not have that right, independently of the wishes of defendant, it is not a district "where it might have been brought," * * *'"

 Obviously, this case could not have been brought originally in the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.