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.

CURTIN v. LITTON SYS.

November 5, 1973

Harry J. CURTIN
v.
LITTON SYSTEMS, INC.


Gorbey, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: GORBEY

Before the court is defendant's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this action from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Northern District of Ohio. This opinion is limited to the issue of whether the case should be transferred from this district to the Northern District of Ohio, and does not consider whether the case more properly belongs or could be maintained in any other jurisdiction. In response to the suggestion of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Solomon v. Continental American Life Insurance Co., 472 F.2d 1043 (1973), the following are the facts on which our decision is based:

 1. Plaintiff, a merchant seaman, who resides in Toms River, New Jersey, alleges employment aboard a vessel, named the SS BEN MOREELL, and an injury during July, 1971, in the course of his employment.

 2. The SS BEN MOREELL is a bulk carrier which has always been operated exclusively in trade on the Great Lakes.

 3. At the time mentioned in the complaint, the SS BEN MOREELL was operated by the Wilson Marine Transit Company Division, a division of defendant Litton Systems, Inc.

 4. The Wilson Marine Transit Company Division was dissolved in January, 1973, and the SS BEN MOREELL was sold to new owners, but continues in operation on the Great Lakes with Cleveland, Ohio, as its port of call.

 5. The sole office of the Wilson Marine Transit Company Division was in Cleveland, Ohio, and its former administrative personnel remained in the greater Cleveland area.

 6. At the time of plaintiff's employment, the SS BEN MOREELL was manned by a crew of 28 men.

 7. The majority of the crew resides in the Great Lakes area.

 8. None of the crew or any other potential witness resides in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

 9. Defendant anticipates that his principal witnesses will be members of this crew and that there will be medical testimony from personnel of the medical facility in one of the Great Lakes ports. However, defendant cannot at this time specify the names of those persons who will testify because plaintiff has not yet stated what the particular nature of the accident in question was; how it was caused; or what his particular injuries were.

 10. The suit in question has no significant contacts with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, other than the fact that plaintiff chose to file his complaint here.

 11. Plaintiff was treated after the incident in question at a U.S. Public Health Service facility in Staten Island, New York, and has also been treated by his ...


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.