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.

CAMPBELL v. MITSUBISHI AIRCRAFT INTL.

August 6, 1976

CHARLES E. CAMPBELL, t/d/b/a CAMPBELL AIR SERVICE, Plaintiff
v.
MITSUBISHI AIRCRAFT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: COHILL

 This matter comes before the court on plaintiff's motion to transfer the case from this court to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

 Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania, and defendant is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in San Angelo, Texas.

 This action was commenced June 27, 1975, the defendant having been served with process by mail from the Secretary of the Commonwealth pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 8302. Defendant's Answer and Counterclaim were filed September 17, 1975, and plaintiff's Reply to the Counterclaim on October 29, 1975.

 For the purposes of this motion, the facts are quite simple. Plaintiff had been a distributor of defendant's products, and had purchased several aircraft from defendant.

 The dispute between the parties involves interest charges on loans (as alleged by plaintiff) or the "credit purchase price" of the aircraft (as alleged by defendant). Plaintiff claims that the usury laws of Texas have been violated. Defendant avers, on the contrary, that Pennsylvania law applies to the transactions, and that there has been no violation of that law.

 The motion for transfer will be denied.

 Plaintiff supports his argument for transfer with the following:

 
1. the possibility exists of a complex conflict of laws question in this case;
 
2. access to sources of proof such as corporate records and witnesses will be more convenient;
 
3. the defendant will not be inconvenienced by the transfer, and in fact, it will be less expensive for defendant to defend this action in Texas than in Pennsylvania;
 
4. the laws of Texas apply to this situation, and a court in Texas will be more "at home with the state law that must govern this action."

 This motion is brought under 28 U.S.C. ┬ž 1404(a), which permits transfers "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, . . ."

 Defendants argue that the motion is untimely in that it comes some ten months after the commencement of the action, after both discovery had been completed and ...


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.