Gross v. Owen

Decision Date17 March 1955
Docket NumberNo. 12310.,12310.
Citation95 US App. DC 222,221 F.2d 94
PartiesLawrence S. GROSS and Pauline S. Gross, Appellants, v. Frances C. OWEN, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Mr. Arthur J. Hilland, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Vincent C. Burke, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.

Miss Agnes A. Neill, Washington, D. C., for appellee. Messrs. Edward Bennett Williams and Murdaugh S. Madden, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before FAHY, WASHINGTON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

Petition for Rehearing In Banc Denied April 8, 1955.

DANAHER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, "without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right to file the action in another court." All parties and most of the witnesses reside in Maryland where appellants' claims arose from an automobile collision, allegedly caused by the appellee's negligence. Appellants assert that the District of Columbia is the most convenient forum, and that since the adoption of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (1952), the District Court no longer has power to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. Jurisdiction was founded entirely upon our local statute, D.C.Code § 11-306 (1951).

It is almost a truism that a plaintiff's choice of a forum will rarely be disturbed and, so far as the private interests of the litigants are concerned, it will not be unless the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of the defendant. Such considerations were urged upon the trial judge in this case, and it cannot be doubted that a trial in this District might have proved equally convenient to parties and witnesses. But the public interest may also be taken into account, and it is clear that this aspect weighed heavily in the District Court's evaluation of the over-all problem. The judge quoted from Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 1947, 330 U.S. 501, 508-509, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055: "Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself." The trial judge stressed the fact that our local dockets are crowded. He undoubtedly took into account that the statute of limitations in Maryland had not yet barred a new action. He certainly knew, as he remarked, that the case could not be transferred to another federal court, and he concluded: "This is a controversy between two citizens of the Free State of Maryland. We have a congested docket here and there is no reason why this case cannot be resolved in Maryland. * * *"

We cannot say that he abused his discretion.1

But, appellants argue, § 1404(a) operates to deprive the District Court of power to dismiss when the doctrine of forum non conveniens is invoked. The law is exactly the reverse, for the statute took nothing from the courts. Rather it conferred a new and additional authority to transfer a proper case where previously the court had no alternative but to dismiss.2 Only recently we pointed out an appropriate exercise of the statutory power in Blake v. Capitol Greyhound Lines, 1955, ___ U.S.App.D.C. ___, 222 F.2d 25, a diversity case, founded upon a transitory tort, which could have been prosecuted in at least two other forums. There we said that if the District Court is persuaded that the action should not here be entertained, "at this late date," the action should not be dismissed but should be transferred to an appropriate district where it might have been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 cases
  • Md. Digital Copier v. Litig. Logistics, Inc., Civil Action No. 18-2027 (TJK)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 22 August 2019
    ...choice of forum is generally afforded. See Jalloh v. Underwood , 300 F. Supp. 3d 151, 155–56 (D.D.C. 2018) ; see also Gross v. Owen , 221 F.2d 94, 95 (D.C. Cir. 1955). And the court has "broad discretion" in determining whether transfer is appropriate under this standard. Rosales v. United ......
  • Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram, P.C. v. Hazard, Civil Action No. 96-1079 SSH.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 30 September 1998
    ...omitted). Plaintiff's choice of forum is due substantial deference. Int'l Bhd. of Painters, 621 F.Supp. at 907; see also Gross v. Owen, 221 F.2d 94, 95 (D.C.Cir.1955) ("It is almost a truism that a plaintiff's choice of a forum will rarely be disturbed and, so far as the private interests o......
  • Colley v. James
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 15 May 2017
    ..."substantial deference." Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram, P.C. v. Hazard , 24 F.Supp.2d 66, 71 (D.D.C. 1998) (citing Gross v. Owen, 221 F.2d 94, 95 (D.C. Cir. 1955) ). That deference is lessened here, however, because Plaintiffs do not reside in this district and "the relevant events occurred e......
  • Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 26 June 2000
    ...of forum is usually accorded "substantial deference" in the venue analysis. See Shapiro, 24 F.Supp.2d at 71 (citing Gross v. Owen, 221 F.2d 94, 95 (D.C.Cir. 1955)). Deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum is particularly strong where the plaintiff has chosen his home forum. See Nichols......
  • 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