Heyco, Inc. v. Heyman
Decision Date | 17 June 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 85 Civ. 3461 (DNE).,85 Civ. 3461 (DNE). |
Citation | 636 F. Supp. 1545 |
Parties | HEYCO, INC., Plaintiff, v. H. Kerry HEYMAN, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Javits, Robinson, Brog, Leinwand & Reich, P.C., New York City (Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Richard A. Dachs, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Burns Summit Rovins & Feldesman, New York City (John L. Amabile, Barbara E. Hoey, of counsel), for defendant.
In this civil diversity action for breach of a restrictive covenant not to compete, defendant moves to dismiss the lawsuit for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (1982). Alternatively, defendant moves to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (1982) on the ground that it would be in the interest of justice and convenient to the parties and witnesses for the action to be tried in New Jersey. Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied and its motion to transfer is granted, on the condition that he consent to the personal jurisdiction of courts sitting in New Jersey.
Defendant H. Kerry Heyman ("Heyman"), a New York domiciliary, was a longtime officer and chairman of plaintiff's predecessor corporation, Heyman Manufacturing Corporation, a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business also in New Jersey.1 Plaintiff is now known as Heyco, Inc ("Heyco"). On December 15, 1981, the parties entered into a buy-out agreement, whereby Heyman resigned his positions with and sold all of his stock in Heyco. The agreement included a covenant providing, in essence, that Heyman would not compete with Heyco.2 Heyco alleges that Heyman twice breached this covenant, once in late 1984 or early 1985 and again in May 1985.3
Heyman moves to dismiss the action for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to New Jersey federal court. Heyman bases his motion primarily on contract provisions, which are commonly known as forum selection or consent-to-jurisdiction clauses ("forum selection clause"). These clauses read:
Defendant's Exhibit A at paras. 9, 18. For the reasons set forth below, this court denies defendant's motion to dismiss and grants his motion to transfer, subject to the aforementioned condition.
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) provides: "The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." In other words, a prerequisite to invoking § 1406(a) is that venue be improper. Buhl v. Jeffes, 435 F.Supp. 1149, 1151 (M.D.Pa.1977); 15 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3827, at 263 (2d ed. 1986). Venue is proper in this court, however, because defendant resides in New York County, which is located within the Southern District of New York. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 112(b) (1982).4
Defendant argues that the forum selection clause renders venue in the Southern District of New York improper. See Hoffman v. Burroughs Corporation, 571 F.Supp. 545, 551 (N.D.Tex.1982). However, in Hoffman and in cases that defendant cites to support its § 1406(a) motion, the forum selection clauses provided that a given court was to have exclusive power to hear the action. See, e.g., AVC Nederland B.V. v. Atrium Investment Partnership, 740 F.2d 148, 155 (2d Cir.1984) (); Bense v. Interstate Battery Systems of America, 683 F.2d 718, 720 (2d Cir.1982) (); Mississippi River Bridge Authority v. M/V Pola de Lena, 567 F.Supp. 311, 312 (E.D.La.1983) (); Gaskin v. Stumm Handel GMbH, 390 F.Supp. 361, 363 (S.D.N.Y.1975) (). By contrast, the clause in this case provides merely that the parties will "submit to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of original jurisdiction of the State of New Jersey for resolution of all disputes arising under this Agreement." As the court stated in Credit Alliance Corporation v. Crook, 567 F.Supp. 1462 (S.D.N.Y.1983), a case construing a similar clause in which the parties had consented to the jurisdiction of New York courts:
Although this language empowers the New York courts to adjudicate this matter, it does not indicate that New York is the exclusive or the only appropriate forum where the case may be heard. In executing the agreement, defendant declared nothing more than her consent to the venue and jurisdiction of a court which might otherwise not exist....
Id. at 1465 (emphasis in original); see Keaty v. Freeport Indonesia, Inc., 503 F.2d 955, 956 (5th Cir.1974) ( ); Coface v. Optique du Monde, Ltd., 521 F.Supp. 500, 503, 506-07 (S.D.N.Y.1980) ( )(citing Keaty, 503 F.2d 955); First National City Bank v. Nanz, Inc., 437 F.Supp. 184, 186-87 (S.D. N.Y.1975) ( ).5 Similarly, under the clause at issue here, New Jersey courts are empowered to adjudicate this litigation, but the parties have not agreed that New Jersey is the exclusive forum. The clause merely allows plaintiff the option of another forum in which to sue.
Because venue is proper in this court, § 1406(a) is inapplicable. Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to § 1406(a) is therefore denied.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides: "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 court finds that a transfer is convenient for the parties and witnesses and is in the interest of justice.
The determination of whether an action should be transferred pursuant to § 1404(a) depends upon a balancing of many different factors. These factors include not only convenience to the parties and witnesses but also the "relative ease of access to proof, availability of witnesses ... and `all other practical problems which make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.'" Hall v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 345 F.Supp. 353, 385 (E.D. N.Y.1972) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947)). Further, "there is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home." Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 509, 67 S.Ct. at 843. The party seeking the transfer bears the burden of establishing that the transfer is warranted, see Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc., 579 F.2d 215, 218 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908, 99 S.Ct. 1215, 59 L.Ed.2d 455 (1979); Bost v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, No. 83 Civ. 5364, slip op. at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 1984) Available on WESTLAW, DCTU database, and that the balance of convenience weighs clearly in his favor, see Y4 Design, Ltd. v. Regensteiner Publishing Enterprises, 428 F.Supp. 1067, 1069 (S.D.N.Y.1977).
In this case, plaintiff is a New Jersey corporation and defendant is a New York domiciliary. The parties agreed that their agreement be deemed made in the state of New Jersey, and that New Jersey substantive law, without resort to its choice of law rules, would control the agreement's construction and enforcement. The parties also consented to the personal jurisdiction of the courts of original jurisdiction of the State of New Jersey for resolution of all disputes arising under the agreement. Plaintiff now alleges that defendant breached the restrictive covenant by dealing with competitors of Heyco located in New Jersey and in Ohio. The court finds these facts sufficient to merit a transfer of this action to New Jersey federal court.
One factor to consider in determining a § 1404(a) motion to transfer is where the operative facts occurred. See, e.g., Mobile Video Services, Ltd. v. National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, 574 F.Supp. 668, 670-71 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); Copulsky v. Boruchow, 545 F.Supp. 126, 128-29 (E.D.N.Y.1982). The agreement was executed in New Jersey. Heyman is alleged to have breached the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harvey v. Cable News Network, Inc.
...Intranexus, Inc. v. Siemens Med. Sols. Health Servs. Corp. , 227 F. Supp. 2d 581, 583 (E.D. Va. 2002) ; see also Heyco, Inc. v. Heyman , 636 F. Supp. 1545, 1551 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (holding that plaintiff's choice of forum is given less weight when the operative facts have no material connectio......
-
Maltz v. Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Co.
...selection clause providing to the contrary does not make that district improper within the meaning of § 1406(a)); Heyco, Inc. v. Heyman, 636 F.Supp. 1545, 1547 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (same). Therefore, since this action was transferred on the basis of a forum selection clause, not on the basis of ......
-
Rolls-Royce Motors, Inc. v. Charles Schmitt & Co.
...witnesses ... and "all other practical problems which make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive."'" Heyco, Inc. v. Heyman, 636 F.Supp. 1545, 1548 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (quoting Hall v. E.I. Dupont, De Nemours & Co., 345 F.Supp. 353, 385 (E.D.N.Y.1972)) (in turn quoting Gulf Oil Corp.......
-
Bd. of Trustees v. BAYLOR HEAT. & AIR CONDITIONING
...Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 378 F.2d 78 (4th Cir.1967). 10 See McFarland v. Yegen, 699 F.Supp. 10, 12 (D.N.H.1988); Heyco, Inc. v. Heyman, 636 F.Supp. 1545, 1551 (S.D.N.Y.1986); cf. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Area Pension Fund v. Brown, 587 F.Supp. 1067, 1070 (N.D.Ill. 1984) (fund......