Amis Construction Co. v. Pressed Steel Tank Co.

Decision Date16 January 1968
Docket NumberNo. 65-C-168.,65-C-168.
Citation279 F. Supp. 83
PartiesAMIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a corporation, and Paul Hardeman, Inc., a corporation, Plaintiffs, and Wallace & Tiernan, Inc., a corporation, Intervening Plaintiff, v. PRESSED STEEL TANK COMPANY, a corporation, and Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, a foreign corporation, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

Arnold, Murray & O'Neill, Milwaukee, Wis., Foliart, Shepherd & McPherren, Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiffs.

Kivett & Kasdorf, Milwaukee, Wis., William G. Smith, Oklahoma City, Okl., for intervening plaintiff.

John H. Ames, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant, Pressed Steel Tank Co.

Foley, Sammond & Lardner, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.

DECISION and ORDER

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs have moved to transfer this action to the western district of Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiffs sue for damages allegedly caused to a pumping station in Oklahoma and contend that such damage was caused by the escape of liquid chlorine through a defective weld in a steel pressure vessel manufactured by the defendants, Pressed Steel Tank Company.

Plaintiffs originally brought an action arising out of the same facts and circumstances in the United States district court for the western district of Oklahoma, but that suit was stayed for the purpose of permitting the plaintiff to institute the present suit in this court. In the Oklahoma federal action, plaintiffs named as defendants all parties in the action pending before this court with the exception of Pressed Steel Tank Company. The latter company is a defendant in the case at bar.

Prior to the commencement of the federal actions, plaintiffs brought suit against several defendants, including Pressed Steel Tank Company, in an Oklahoma state court. The state court suit was based upon the same facts and circumstances as were the federal court suits.

JURISDICTION IN OKLAHOMA

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides:

"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."

The initial question is whether Oklahoma is a forum in which the case "might have been brought" in the first instance. If jurisdiction in Oklahoma is lacking, this court is without power to transfer to that district. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 80 S.Ct. 1084, 4 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1960).

An adjudication was made by the state trial court in Oklahoma on May 19, 1966, that Pressed Steel Tank Company is amenable to jurisdiction in the state of Oklahoma. If this court may rely on the finding of the Oklahoma state court, it necessarily follows that Oklahoma is a forum where the case "might have been brought".

In Stoner v. New York Life Ins. Co., 311 U.S. 464, 61 S.Ct. 336, 85 L.Ed. 284, l. c. 287, Reh. Denied, 312 U.S. 713, 61 S.Ct. 609, 85 L.Ed. 1144, the court stated:

"We have recently held that in cases where jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship, federal courts, under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487, must follow the decisions of intermediate state courts in the absence of convincing evidence that the highest court of the state would decide differently."

That general rule was applied in Ebel v. Spencer Chemical Company, 227 F. Supp. 956 (W.D.Mo.1964), where an objection to removal to a federal court in North Dakota was based upon the claim that the defendant was not subject to service of process in North Dakota. The court quoted from the Stoner Case and stated at page 958:

"Since there is no evidence that the ruling of the District Court for the Second Judicial District of North Dakota is erroneous, this Court has the power to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota under Section 1404(a) of Title 28 U.S.C.A. The next question for determination is whether it should do so."

In Galion Iron Works & Mfg. Co. v. Russell, 167 F.Supp. 304, 310 (W.D.Ark. 1958), the court said:

"The decision of a state trial court is, of course, not binding upon a federal court in diversity actions. King v. Order of United Commercial Travelers, 1948, 333 U.S. 153, 68 S.Ct. 488, 92 L.Ed. 608; cf. Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. Field, 1940, 311 U.S. 169, 61 S.Ct. 176, 85 L.Ed. 109. But decisions of trial courts, though not binding, are persuasive, particularly when, as here, they deal with subjects peculiarly within the knowledge and experience of state courts."

The decision by the Oklahoma state court that Pressed Steel Tank Company is amenable to service of process in that state is persuasive. The interpretation of the Oklahoma long-arm statute is a subject "peculiarly within the knowledge and experience" of an Oklahoma court. Relying on the finding made by the Oklahoma state trial court, this court is of the opinion that Pressed Steel Tank Company may be served in Oklahoma; thus, Oklahoma is a forum where the suit "might have been brought" originally under Section 1404 (a).

THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION

Having decided that jurisdiction exists to transfer this case, it now must be decided whether such transfer will be for the convenience of parties or witnesses or in the interest of justice. Transfer pursuant to section 1404(a) lies within the broad discretion of the court, and the burden rests with the party seeking the transfer. Huisman v. Gauder,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Harry Rich Corporation v. Curtiss-Wright Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 25, 1969
    ...709 (D.Nev., 1962), affirmed in part United Air Lines, Inc. v. Wiener, 335 F.2d 379 (9th Cir., 1964); Amis Construction Co. v. Pressed Steel Tank Co., 279 F.Supp. 83 (E.D. Wisc., 1968); Thomas v. Silver Creek Coal Co., 264 F.Supp. 833, 835 (E.D.Pa., 1967); Pruess v. Udall, 123 U.S.App. D.C.......
  • Weiner v. Sorenson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
    • February 28, 1972
    ...A district court has discretion in determining whether a motion to transfer should be granted. Amis Construction Co. v. Pressed Steel Tank Co., 279 F. Supp. 83 (E.D.Wis.1968). "It is clear that a plaintiff's choice of forum is to be disturbed only upon a clear showing by the moving party th......
  • Medtronic, Inc. v. American Optical Corporation, 4-70-Civ. 472.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • September 17, 1971
    ...should be transferred. Riso Kagaku Corp. v. A. B. Dick Co., 300 F. Supp. 1007, 1010 (S.D.N.Y.1969); Amis Construction Co. v. Pressed Steel Tank Co., 279 F.Supp. 83, 86 (E.D.Wis.1968); Swanson v. Badger Mutual Insurance Co., 275 F.Supp. 544, 548 (N.D.Ill.1967). In making this determination §......
  • Weissfeld v. Herman Miller, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • December 20, 1968
    ...(E.D.Tenn.1964); Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Taylor, 239 F.Supp. 913, 922-923 (S.D. N.Y.1965); Amis Constr. Co. v. Pressed Steel Tank Co., 279 F.Supp. 83, 85 (E.D. Wis.1968). See especially, Junious v. Food Transport Co., Inc., 258 F.Supp. 508 (M.D.Pa.1966), which considered the ide......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT