Hercules Company v. s/s Aramis, 6222.

Decision Date20 February 1964
Docket NumberNo. 6222.,6222.
Citation226 F. Supp. 599
PartiesThe HERCULES COMPANY v. The S/S ARAMIS, etc.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

Henry Dart, Jr., Henry P. Dart, III and George L. Wax, of Dart & Dart, New Orleans, La., and John Dart, New Orleans, La., of counsel, for libellant.

James L. Schupp, Jr., Terriberry, Rault, Carroll, Yancey & Farrell, New Orleans, La., for respondent.

FRANK B. ELLIS, Judge.

While it is certainly true that "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," 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a), it does not necessarily mean that a court must consider first a motion for summary judgment rather than a motion to transfer when both are filed simultaneously. Contrarily, a Court may consider only the motion to transfer and leave the motion for summary judgment to be decided by the transferee court, United States v. Swift & Company, D.C., 158 F.Supp. 551.

Nor is it valid grounds for objection that Section 1404(a) does not apply to libels in admiralty for the great weight of authority stands for the proposition that it applies to both civil and admiralty actions. Medich v. American Oil Co., D.C., 177 F.Supp. 682; Higgins v. California Tanker Co., D.C., 166 F. Supp. 42; Torres v. The Rosario, D.C., 125 F.Supp. 496, mandamus denied Torres v. Walsh, 2 Cir., 221 F.2d 319, cert. den. 350 U.S. 836, 76 S.Ct. 72, 100 L.Ed. 746; National Tea Co. v. The Marseille, D.C., 142 F.Supp. 415; Paco Tankers, Inc. v. Atlantic Land & Imp. Co., D. C., 108 F.Supp. 406; LeMee v. Streckfus Steamers, Inc., D.C., 96 F.Supp. 270; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. American Mail Line, D.C., 94 F.Supp. 28; Arrowhead Company v. The Aimee Lykes, D.C., 101 F.Supp. 895; Coleman v. Stockard S. S. Corp., D.C., 172 F.Supp. 366; Kinsman Transit Co. v. Dunham Towing & Wrecking Co., D.C., 122 F. Supp. 911; Petition of Backman, D.C., 122 F.Supp. 896. Contra: Puget Sound Tug & Barge Company v. The Go-Getter, D.C., 106 F.Supp. 492.

It is equally well-settled that the district courts are vested with a wide discretion over whether the requested transfer should be granted and it is reversible only on a clear showing of an abuse of this discretion. See Houston Fearless Corporation v. Teter, 10 Cir., 318 F.2d 822; Butterick Company v. Will, 7 Cir., 316 F.2d 111; Chemetron Corporation v. Perry, 7 Cir., 295 F.2d 703; Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Connell, 6 Cir., 295 F.2d 32; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Company v. Hugh Breeding, Inc., 10 Cir., 232 F.2d 584.

In this particular case the entire cause of action arose in the District of New Jersey. The only connection this action has with the Eastern District of Louisiana is the presence of proctors for libellant and respondent, none other. All of the documentary evidence...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Norfolk Ship. & Dry. Corp. v. Motor Yacht La Belle Simone
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico
    • July 30, 1973
    ...L.Ed. 1055 (1947); Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 80 S.Ct. 1470, 4 L.Ed.2d 1540 (1960), and Hercules Company v. SS Aramis, 226 F.Supp. 599 (D.D.La.1964). Counsel for defendants argued that Norfolk Ship had chosen Puerto Rico as a forum when they attached La Belle Simon......
  • Big Island Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Dowty
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • April 20, 1993
    ...motions); Walsh v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 339 F.Supp. 1372 (E.D.Wis.1972) (refusing to decide various motions); Hercules Co. v. s/s Aramis, 226 F.Supp. 599 (E.D.La.1964) (refusing to decide summary judgment motion); United States v. Swift & Co., 158 F.Supp. 551, 560 (D.D.C.1958) (holdin......
  • St. Cyr v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 79 C 598.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 18, 1980
    ...its resolution to the court which will be responsible for the final disposition of the entire case. See, e. g., Hercules Co. v. S. S. Aramis, 226 F.Supp. 599 (D.C.La.1964); U. S. v. Swift & Co., 158 F.Supp. 551 (D.D.C.1958); Anthony v. RKO Radio Pictures, 103 F.Supp. 56 (S.D. Turning next t......
  • In re Vital Link Lodi, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Missouri
    • October 14, 1999
    ...Stolz v. Barker, 466 F.Supp. 24 (M.D.N.C. 1978); Thomas v. Silver Creek Coal Co., 264 F.Supp. 833 (E.D.Pa.1967); Hercules Co. v. S/S Aramis, 226 F.Supp. 599 (E.D.La.1964); United States v. Swift & Co., 158 F.Supp. 551, 560 (D.D.C.1958) (all transferring venue and withholding decision on pen......
  • 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