Josephson v. McGuire
| Decision Date | 23 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 53-1106. |
| Citation | 121 F. Supp. 83 |
| Parties | JOSEPHSON v. McGUIRE et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Goulston & Storrs, Herbert B. Ehrmann, David H. Greenberg, Boston, Mass., Milton Paulson, New York City, for plaintiff.
George A. McLaughlin, Boston, Mass., Caswell S. Neal, Carlsbad, N. M., for Catherine M. Kennedy, Max J. Cohen and John A. McGuire.
The sole question is whether in its discretion this Court should transfer this case pursuant to the venue provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) from this district to the district of New Mexico. All parties concede that the Court has power and all are agreed as to the corpus of principles properly applicable to the exercise of discretion. Hence, only the briefest memorandum is required.
These are the factors which seem to me to be determinative.
1. This is a minority stockholder's derivative suit. The complaint charges individual directors with a breach of their fiduciary duties towards a New Mexico corporation.
2. The three individual defendants are all domiciled in Massachusetts, but at least one of them spends the larger part of his time in the Southwest.
3. Additional directors and numerous other persons almost certain to be called as witnesses live in New Mexico and Texas.
4. While it is uncertain exactly what proportion of the documents are located here, and what proportion are located in New Mexico, it is clear that the law of New Mexico or of an area geographically and legally close to it governs stockholder's votes, underlying contracts, and property rights.
5. It is at least arguable that Massachusetts State Court rules do not recognize as appropriate for local determination a case, such as this, which challenges the foreign performance of fiduciary duties of directors of a foreign corporation. Wason v. Buzzell, 181 Mass. 338, 63 N.E. 909; Kelley v. American Sugar Refining Co., 311 Mass. 617, 42 N.E.2d 592. And though it may be that this state rule does not govern a federal court sitting in Massachusetts, the policy expressed in State decisions ought not to be regarded as entirely without weight in the exercise of this Court's discretion. Cf. Weiss v. Routh, 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 193, 159 A.L.R. 658.
6. Despite the fact that it is plausibly contended that the law of New Mexico with respect to fiduciary duties is identical with the Massachusetts law on the same subject, this contention is not buttressed by a large array of New Mexico state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Josephson
...be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice to transfer the cause to the District of New Mexico. 121 F.Supp. 83. It is conceded by petitioner that the order of transfer is not a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Jiffy Lubricator ......
-
Schneider v. Sears
...524, 67 S.Ct. 828, 832, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947); Freiman v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 38 F.R.D. 336, 339 (N.D.Ill.1965); Josephson v. McGuire, 121 F.Supp. 83, 84-85 (D.Mass.1954), mandamus dismissed, 218 F.2d 174 (1st Cir. 30 A plaintiff in a representative action may have a more direct pecuniar......
-
Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp.
...Circuit case, Chicago R.I. & P.R. v. Igoe, 220 F.2d 299 (7th Cir.1955), which explicitly adopts the reasoning of Josephson v. McGuire, 121 F.Supp. 83, 84 (D.C.Mass. 1954), which held (without citation to authority) that the plaintiff's choice of forum was entitled to only minimal value when......
-
In re Ryze Claims Solutions, LLC
...Indeed, the plaintiff's choice of forum was afforded " ‘[a] large measure of deference.’ " Id. at 304 (quoting Josephson v. McGuire , 121 F. Supp. 83, 84 (D. Mass. 1954) ).Mr. Billings also relies on In re Genentech, Inc. , 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009), where the court stated that "......