Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight
| Decision Date | 03 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 21643.,21643. |
| Citation | 181 F.2d 949 |
| Parties | FOSTER-MILBURN CO. et al. v. KNIGHT, Chief Judge. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Richard J. Burke, New York City, for petitioners.
C. Ray Robinson, Merced, Cal., for respondent.
Before L. HAND, Chief Judge, SWAN and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
The defendants have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to prevent the transfer of an action, based upon diversity of citizenship, from the Western District of New York to the Southern District (Northern Division) of California. No order has yet been issued, but after hearing both parties upon a petition of the plaintiff the judge has filed an opinion, holding that § 1404(a) of the Judicial Code1 authorizes the transfer because it will be for the convenience of witnesses; and concededly, he will enter the appropriate order, unless we decide otherwise. The defendants' petition raises two questions: our jurisdiction to issue a writ; and the district judge's jurisdiction to transfer the action.
We held in Magnetic Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. Dings Manufacturing Company2 that we would not entertain the petition of a plaintiff to review by mandamus an order transferring a "diversity" action to the district of the defendants' residence, but would leave the question for the court of appeals of the circuit to which the action had been transferred. The district court had jurisdiction to transfer that action to the district of the defendants' residence, and the only question was whether its discretionary power should be reviewed in limine by the court of appeals of the circuit a quo, or by that of the circuit ad quem. We concluded that, since one of the most important determining factors was whether the plaintiff could review the error, if any, on appeal from a judgment against him, it was more appropriate for the court of appeals of the circuit ad quem to decide it than for us. However, we said that in such a situation the merits might "be so plain" that we "ought not to hesitate" to intervene, even though we were sure that the transfer could be reviewed on appeal. In the case at bar the question is whether the district court has any power to consider the question at all; if it has not, the transfer will be a nullity, for, as we shall show, the District Court for the Southern District (Northern Division) of California will have no jurisdiction over the defendants, and any judgment it may enter will be void.
True, it can be plausibly argued that the defendants can appeal from the order after it is entered. For example, if a court reopens a judgment after the time has passed within which it has power to do so, an appeal lies, although the order grants a new trial and is therefore interlocutory.3 However, so far as we can learn, that doctrine has not been extended to appeals from other interlocutory orders, even when the only issue is of the district court's jurisdiction; and it may be that it should be confined to that specific situation in which it has been applied. Nevertheless, it will not be necessary to decide whether an appeal will lie from the order of the Western District of New York, because it will be easy for the defendants to avoid that question by both appealing and petitioning for a writ when the order is entered. All that we have to consider is whether in one guise or the other we shall have any power of review. If we are right in supposing that, should § 1404(a) not authorize the transfer, any judgment in the California court will be a nullity, there can be no doubt that the order will be reviewable on appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and there is no reason why we should not decide the point in limine.
Coming then to the merits, it is true that the District Court of the Southern District (Northern Division) of California would have jurisdiction over an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, provided he served them with process within that state, or, perhaps, that district.4 Hence, the plaintiff argues, since he could have "brought" the action in California, § 1404(a) authorized its transfer thither. That would be true, if that section regards the mere filing of a complaint as a bringing of the action; but it is not true, if it presupposes that the defendant can be served. We do not forget that an action is "commenced" when the complaint is filed;5 and it would follow, if it is "brought" whenever it is "commenced," that the plaintiff is right. The inference is, however, unwarranted that Rule 3 meant to assimilate the filing of a complaint to the service of a summons. Apparently its primary object was to fix a limit upon the period of limitation; and that has never required the service of process, but ordinarily only the lodgement of process in the hands of the sheriff, as it still does, for example, in New York.6 We need not say that that is the only office of Rule 3, but we are satisfied that at least it does not make the filing of a complaint the equivalent of "bringing an action" under § 1404(a).
It is horn book law that transitory actions must begin with personal service upon the defendant and that, when they do not, the judgment is a nullity.7 It is of course true that Congress might make the process of a district court run throughout the Union, as indeed it has done in suits by the United States under the Anti-Trust Acts.8 But, unless otherwise specifically provided, the initial process in a transitory action has always been limited territorially; and Rule 4(f) now confines it to the boundaries of the state in which the action is pending. If, however, the plaintiff be right, § 1404(a) has made it possible in "diversity" cases for a plaintiff to dispense with service upon the defendant in the district where the case is to be tried; for by serving him in an action in the defendant's own district, the plaintiff may fetch him 2,000 to 3,000 miles away for trial in a district where he does not live and where he has never set foot. Considering that, this is contrary to the substantially uniform practice of Congress, and we ought to demand a plain expression of intent to so revolutionary a change.9 Not only is there no such expression, but analysis of the results of such an interpretation make it to the last degree improbable that this could have been the purpose.
Section 1391(b) of the Judicial Code10 covers all but "diversity" actions, among them those founded upon the Constitution or any law or treaty of the United States; and in all of these the plaintiff must sue in the district where the defendant resides and must serve him in the state. It is clear...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kanatser v. Chrysler Corp., 4434.
...Procedure, where the court exceeded its authority to grant new trials under the rules. See Freid v. McGrath, supra; Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, 2 Cir., 181 F.2d 949; Untersinger v. United States, 2 Cir., 181 F.2d 953. The question remains whether the circumstances here present a proper ca......
-
MOBIL OIL CORPORATION. v. WR Grace & Company
...U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1404(a); Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 80 S.Ct. 1084, 4 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1960); Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, 181 F.2d 949 (2nd Cir. 1950) (per Learned Hand, J.). There is no suggestion by plaintiff, however, that Grace could not have been sued originally in Connecticu......
-
In re Josephson
...in which the defendants were not amenable to process. Such a gloss was indeed put upon the language of § 1404(a) in Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, 2 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 949, and in Shapiro v. Bonanza Hotel Co., Inc., 9 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 777. These decisions have been criticized, we think......
-
Clayton v. Warlick
...Wiren v. Laws, 90 U.S. App.D.C. 105, 194 F.2d 873. See also C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co. v. Barnes, 7 Cir., 194 F.2d 410. 2 Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, 2 Cir., 181 F.2d 949; Shapiro v. Bonanza Hotel Co. Inc., 9 Cir., 185 F.2d 777; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Davis, 5 Cir., 185 F.2d 3 Chicago......