Hampton Theatres v. Paramount Film Dist. Corp., Civ. A. No. 263-50.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1950 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 263-50. |
| Parties | HAMPTON THEATRES, Inc. v. PARAMOUNT FILM DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
John F. Clagett, Harold L. Schilz, of Clagett & Schilz, all of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
Kenneth Royall of Dwight, Royall, Harris, Koegel & Caskey, of Washington, D. C., for defendants.
Plaintiff, a Virginia corporation, which operates a motion picture theatre located about mid-way between Hampton and Newport News, Virginia, brings this action to recover of defendants damages for alleged violations of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1-7, 15 note, 12 et seq., and for injunctive relief to prevent further violations of said Acts. Defendants are corporations of Delaware or New York, all of whom maintain branch offices in the District of Columbia and service of process has been had in this jurisdiction.
Defendants have moved, pursuant to Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code Annotated, for an order transferring this civil action to the United States Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, Virginia. This section of the Code provides as follows: "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". (Emphasis supplied.) It will thus be seen that this Court may, in its discretion, transfer this case to any other district "where the action might have been brought." Looking then to the venue statute of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 22, which is the broader of the two venue provisions, we find that "Any suit, action, or proceeding under the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts business; and all process in such cases may be served in the district of which it is an inhabitant, or wherever it may be found."
The defendants do not contend, nor could such a contention be substantiated, that this Court lacks jurisdiction of either the subject matter, or the parties. Defendants contend (1) that plaintiff's cause of action, if any, did not arise in the District of Columbia; (2) that since plaintiff has demanded a jury trial, a jury should see or be familiar with the localities involved and that can be done, if at all, only by a Virginia jury; (3) should an adverse decree be entered requiring minute supervision, only a court sitting in the locality of the business involved could perform that function practically; and (4) that the alleged co-conspirators, who are not named as defendants, are subject to service of process in Virginia, but not in this jurisdiction and that defendants could not guarantee their attendance as witnesses if the case were tried in the District of Columbia. Defendants have no branch...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoffman v. Blaski Sullivan v. Behimer
...112 F.Supp. 338 (dictum). 8. Silbert v. Nu-Car Carriers, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1953, 111 F.Supp. 357; Hampton Theaters, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., D.C.D.C.1950, 90 F.Supp. 645. See also Arvidson v. Reynolds Metals Co., D.C.W.D.Wash.1952, 107 F.Supp. 51 (denying the defendants' motion ......
-
Brandt v. Renfield Importers, Ltd.
...of Minnesota, D.C., 107 F.Supp. 439; Austad v. United States Steel Corp., D.C., 141 F.Supp. 437; Hampton Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., D.C., 90 F.Supp. 645; Windsor Theatre Co. v. Loew's Incorporated, D.C., 79 F.Supp. 871; Commonwealth Amusement Enterprises, Inc. v. C......
-
Mitchell v. Gundlach, 8100.
...and the District of Columbia. See Cinema Amusements v. Loew's, Inc., D.C.Del.1949, 85 F.Supp. 319; Hampton Theatres v. Paramount Film Dis. Corp., D.C.D.C.1950, 90 F.Supp. 645; Anthony v. RKO Radio Pictures, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1951, 103 F.Supp. 56; United States v. Reid, D.C.E.D.Ark.1952, 104 F.Sup......
-
Ex parte Blaski
...to grant the motion where the defendants are not subject to service in the transferee district. Hampton Theatres, Inc., v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp., D.C.D.C.1950, 90 F. Supp. 645; Johnson v. Harris, D.C.Tenn. 1953, 112 F.Supp. 338; Sheridan v. Pan-American Refining Corp., D.C.N.Y.1......