January 12, 1970
Country Maid, Inc.
Vasilios Haseotes, Aphrodite Haseotes, Demetrios Haseotes, George Haseotes, Byron Haseotes, Lily Haseotes, Francis N. Alger, Robert F. McNeil and Cumberland Farms Northern, Inc., Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., Commonwealth Dairy Stores, Inc., Central Food Stores, Inc., Connecticut Food Store, Inc., Cumberland Farms of Connecticut, Inc., Burlington Food Store Inc., Cape Cod Farms, Inc., Delaware Food Store, Inc., Narragansett Food Store, Inc., Lily-Penn Food Stores, Inc., VSH Realty, Inc., Cumberland Farms of New Jersey, Inc.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: BODY
The facts out of which this antitrust action arose are described at length in this Court's opinion and order herein dated April 29, 1969.
Presently before the Court for consideration is defendants' motion for transfer of this case to either the District of Massachusetts or the District of Rhode Island pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
In support of their motion, the defendants argue that such a transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses for the following reasons:
(1) a substantial majority of the prospective witnesses live and work in Massachusetts and Rhode Island;
(2) all the individual defendants live and work in the Massachusetts-Rhode Island area;
(3) the majority of relevant documents are located in Massachusetts and Rhode Island;
(4) Pennsylvania has no connection whatsoever with this litigation.
The defendants further contend that such a transfer would be in the interest of justice. The following are their reasons in support of that contention:
(1) the calendar conditions are substantially better in both the District of Massachusetts and the District of Rhode Island than in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
(2) the plaintiff's choice of forum is given little weight where, as here, that forum has no connection with the matter in controversy.
As a starting point, it is important to remember that a motion for transfer under Section 1404(a) is addressed to the discretion of the court. Founds v. Shedaker, 278 F. Supp. 32 (E.D. Pa. 1968); Brown v. Woodring, 174 F. Supp. 640 (M.D. Pa. 1959). Accordingly, we proceed to a consideration of the factors relevant to the issue at hand.
The Supreme Court listed the relevant criteria in the case of Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 67 S. Ct. 839 (1947).
The court there said:
Buy This Entire Record For