Hayes v. Chicago, RI & PR Co.

• Decision Date: 25 September 1948
• Docket Number: 2802.,2720,No. 2719,2777,2771-2773,2791,2719
• Citation: 79 F. Supp. 821
• Parties: HAYES v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO., and seven other cases.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

79 F. Supp. 821

HAYES v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. R. CO., and seven other cases.

Nos. 2719, 2720, 2771-2773, 2777, 2791, 2802.

United States District Court D. Minnesota Fourth Division.

September 25, 1948.

Philip Stringer (of O'Brien, Horn, Stringer, Seymour & O'Connor), of St. Paul, Minn., for defendant.

William A. Tautges, of Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs.

Before NORDBYE and JOYCE, District Judges.

NORDBYE, District Judge.

These cases are before the Court on defendant's motions for an order transferring the venue for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, in accordance with Section 1404 (a) of the United States Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A., approved June 25, 1948, effective September 1, 1948. In view of the importance of the question involved, the motions were heard by two judges.

These cases all arise under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U.S. C.A. § 51 et seq., and because of the common question involved the motions were consolidated for hearing. In the Hayes case, the accident happened at Dalhart, in the State of Texas, where plaintiff and all of the witnesses reside. Dalhart is some one thousand miles from Minneapolis and is located in the Amarillo Division of the United States District Court for Northern Texas. It is situated 82 miles from Amarillo, where the United States Court sits. Hayes was treated by physicians residing at Dalhart and Fort Worth, Texas, on account of injuries received in the accident, and it is estimated that some six witnesses to be called in behalf of the defendant would have to travel from Dalhart and Fort Worth, Texas, to Minneapolis if the trial is to be had in this jurisdiction.

In the Hughes, Grulkey, Murphy, Schirf, Holmes, and Conner cases, the accidents happened in the State of Oklahoma near El Reno, where all of the plaintiffs reside, except the administratrix in the Conner case, who resides at Oklahoma City. El Reno is 874 miles from Minneapolis and is situated in the Western District of Oklahoma, where the United States Court is held at Oklahoma City, some 28 miles from El Reno. The witnesses whom the defendant company will be required to call from El Reno and vicinity to attend the trials in Minneapolis will vary from five to nine witnesses in each case. Each of these plaintiffs was treated by local physicians in Oklahoma on account of injuries sustained in the accidents who will be necessary witnesses at the trial.

In the Flack case, the accident happened near Rock Island, Illinois, where Flack and all of his witnesses reside, including the physicians who attended him on account of injuries received in the accident. Rock Island is some 343 miles from Minneapolis, and the United States Court in that district sits at Peoria, Illinois, which is 90 miles from Rock Island. If the case is to be tried in Minneapolis, defendant will be required to bring to this district eight witnesses from the vicinity of Rock Island.

Plaintiffs do not challenge defendant's showing that, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, these cases should be properly transferred to the districts and divisions where the plaintiffs reside and where the accidents happened. Plaintiffs contest the transfer solely upon the ground that Section 1404(a), Title 28 United States Code Annotated, does not apply to cases where venue is granted under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. This section reads: "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 reviser's notes on p. 1853 of the copy of the Code issued by West Publishing Co. and Edward Thompson Co. indicate that the purpose and scope of Section 1404(a) are as follows: "Subsection (a) was drafted in accordance with the doctrine of forum non conveniens, permitting transfer to a more convenient forum, even though the venue is proper. As an example of the need of such a provision, see Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, 1941, 314 U.S. 44, 62 S.Ct. 6, 86 L.Ed. 28 136 A.L.R. 1222, which was prosecuted under the Federal Employers' Liability Act in New York, although the accident occurred and the employee resided in Ohio. The new subsection requires the court to determine that the transfer is necessary for convenience of the parties and witnesses, and further, that it is in the interest of justice to do so."

Plaintiffs earnestly urge that Congress did not intend that this subsection of the Code should be applicable to cases brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. It is suggested that the subsection is nothing more than a statutory enactment of the doctrine of forum non conveniens and that the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that that doctrine does not apply to cases brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, which bestows special venue rights on those entitled to proceed thereunder. Much has been written about the history of the enactment of the venue statute in 1910 under the Federal Employers' Liability Act and the reasons which prompted Congress to extend the venue rights of injured employees seeking relief under the Act. In Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, 314 U.S. 44, at pages 49, 50, 62 S.Ct. 6, 8, 86 L.Ed. 28, 136 A.L.R. 1222, Justice Reed states that the apparent reason for the extension of the general venue statute in Federal Employers' Liability Act cases "was said to be the injustice to an injured employee of compelling him to go to the possibly far distant place of habitation of the defendant carrier with consequent increased expense for the transportation and maintenance of witnesses, lawyers and parties away from their homes." Both the Kepner case and Miles v. Illinois Central R. Co., 315 U.S. 698, 62 S.Ct. 827, 86 L.Ed. 1129, 146 A.L.R. 1104, dealt with the power of a State Court to enjoin a resident of its State from prosecuting an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act in a Federal Court and a State Court respectively, where the Act gave venue, on the ground that the prosecution in those respective jurisdictions would be inequitable, vexatious, and harassing to the carrier. And in both of these cases, the Supreme Court denied the right of the State Court to enjoin such prosecution and clearly indicated that the State's power to control its own citizens did not extend to the curtailing of the exercise of the federal privilege of litigating a federal right in the court of another State.

In Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055, which enunciated the principle that a Federal District Court had the power to dismiss an action at law, pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court recognized that, in cases under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, plaintiff's choice of forum could not be defeated by the doctrine of forum non conveniens and indicated that this was true because of the special venue act which permitted a plaintiff to bring an action under the Act in the district of the residence of the defendant, or in which the cause of action arose, or in which the defendant shall be doing business at the time of the commencement of the action.

The doctrine of forum non conveniens is bottomed upon the right of the Court in the exercise of its equitable powers to refuse the imposition upon its jurisdiction of the trial of cases, even though the venue is properly laid, if it appears that, for the convenience of the litigants and the witnesses, in the interest of justice, the action should be instituted in another forum where the action might have been brought. In Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, supra, the court noted that many States had met the misuse of venue by the enactment of suitable statutes, but that there was no federal law which guided the court under such circumstances. Now it appears that Congress has enacted a statute which permits the Court in any civil action to order a transfer if the conditions set forth in the statute are sustained. No one obtains any vested right in venue. It is granted by legislative enactment and can be withdrawn by the same power. The right is procedural and not substantive. The fact that these cases were brought in this District before the statute became effective is immaterial. 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 262.

Section 1404(a) is unambiguous, direct, clear, and by the language used embraces within its scope all civil actions. "Any civil action" includes one brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. If Congress had intended that there should be any exception to the right of the court to transfer civil actions to other venues where the actions might have been brought, it presumably would have noted such exceptions. Obviously, it is not for the Court to attempt to read into, or assume, an exception which is not justified by the language employed by Congress, and there is nothing in the legislative history of the section which indicates that Congress intended to except the Federal Employers' Liability Act from its application. And it should be emphasized that this section of the new Judicial Code does not take away any venue rights granted by the general venue statute or any special venue statute. A litigant proceeding under the Federal Employers' Liability Act can institute his action in any district where he could before Section 1404(a) was enacted. The limitation is to be found in the right of the Court to apply to actions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act the same rule with reference to the right to transfer as applies to any other civil action. It does not necessarily follow that every case under the Federal Employers' Liability Act brought in a district other than that in which plaintiffs and his witnesses reside should be transferred. The right of the plaintiff to select his venue under the Act is not limited by this statute, and the burden rests upon the defendant to...