Koster v. American Lumbermens Mut Casualty Co, No. 206

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJACKSON
Citation91 L.Ed. 1067,330 U.S. 518,67 S.Ct. 828
PartiesKOSTER v. (AMERICAN) LUMBERMENS MUT. CASUALTY CO
Decision Date10 March 1947
Docket NumberNo. 206

330 U.S. 518
67 S.Ct. 828
91 L.Ed. 1067
KOSTER

v.

(AMERICAN) LUMBERMENS MUT. CASUALTY CO.

No. 206.
Argued Dec. 19, 1946.
Decided March 10, 1947.

Page 519

Mr. Julius Levy, of New York City, for petitioner.

Mr. Stuart N. Updike, of New York City, for respondent.

Mr. Justice JACKSON, delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a derivative action, in equity as are all such derivative actions, begun by plaintiff as a member and policyholder of Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company 'in the right of Lumbermen's and on behalf of all its members and policy holders.' It was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, of which plaintiff is a citizen. Jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship. The defendants are the Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, a nominal defendant, organized under the laws of Illinois; one James S. Kemper, president and manager thereof, a citizen of Illinois, and James S. Kemper & Co., an Illinois corporation. The relief asked is that the other defendants account to Lumbermens, for damages it has sustained and for profits they

Page 520

have realized on certain transactions. It is alleged that defendant Kemper, as an officer of the company, has been guilty of breaches of trust by which he, his family corporation and his friends have profited. Plaintiff charges that Kemper's salary was improvidently increased from less than $75,000 to over $251,000; that although Lumbermens was staffed and equipped to write insurance without the intervention of any agency, he employed the Kemper Company and paid it 'substantial sums' as 'commissions, fees and otherwise' to Lumbermens' prejudice and Kemper's profit, and that Kemper caused assets of Lumbermens to be sold to himself and favorites at prices less than their values. Kemper individually was never served in New York. Unless he should be found within that jurisdiction, some of the alleged causes of action cannot be tried in this action in any event for want of an indispensable party. Some of its issues could be tried without him.

The district court, on motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens,1 found that Lumbermens does business in forty-eight states, but ts home and principal place of business are in Illinois. There its directors live; there all records are kept; and no witness shown to be necessary to either side of the case resides outside of Illinois. The plaintiff himself lives in New York, but he does

Page 521

not appear to have attended any meetings of policyholders or to have raised objection to the acts alleged, or otherwise to have personal knowledge so that he could possibly be a witness except as to his ownership of the policy of insurance which is not denied. It would appear necessary for him to make his own case largely from books and records in Chicago and from testimony of officers and witnesses resident there. It also is evident that the legality of many of these transactions will turn on the law of Illinois, under which Lumbermens exists and within whose territory the questioned acts took place. That would be home law if the case were tried in Chicago; it would be foreign law to New York and the case, if tried there, would involve conflict of laws. It also is urged that plaintiff's total of premium payments is less than $250, which would be the maximum possible interest he personally could have in the controversy.

Under these circumstances, two courts below concurred in the view that the case should not be tried in New York as there was ample remedy available in the state and federal courts of Illinois. Both relied upon Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, 288 U.S. 123, 53 S.Ct. 295, 77 L.Ed. 652, 89 A.L.R. 720. The dissenting judge below considered that our more recent decision in Williams v. Green Bay & Western R.R., 326 U.S. 549, 66 S.Ct. 284, implies disapproval of the Rogers case and restricts application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We brought the case here on certiorari. 329 U.S. 700, 67 S.Ct. 61.

This case involves the special problems of forum non conveniens which inhere in derivative actions, and which have been little considered by this Court. Williams v. Green Bay & Western R.R., 326 U.S. 549, 66 S.Ct. 284, was not a derivative action brought in the right of a nominal defendant corporation. Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co., 288 U.S. 123, 53 S.Ct. 295, 77 L.Ed. 652, 89 A.L.R. 720, was a derivative action, but that feature of the case was given almost no attention and the emphasis was entirely on the extent to which it involved inquiry into

Page 522

the 'internal affairs of a foreign corporation,' certainly not the most distinguishing feature of these actions.

The stockholder's derivative action, to which this policyholder's action is analogous, is an invention of equity to supply the want of an adequate remedy at law to redress breaches of fiduciary duty by corporate managers. Usually the wrongdoing officers also possess the control which enables them to suppress any effort by the corporate entity to remedy such wrongs. Equity therefore traditionally entertains the derivative or secondary action by which a single stockholder may sue in the corporation's right when he shows that the corporation on proper demand has refused to pursue a remedy, or sho facts that demonstrate the futility of such a request. With possible rare exceptions, these actions involve only issues of state law and, as in the present case, can get into federal courts only by reason of diversity in citizenship of the parties. Their existence and peculiar character were recognized by this Court in the old Equity Rules. Rule 27, 226 U.S.App., p. 8. The complexities and unique features of these actions, however, are relevant to the forum non conveniens issue, for in these, as in all other petitions for equitable relief, he who seeks equity must do equity, and the court will be alert to see that its peculiar remedial process is in no way abused.

The cause of action which such a plaintiff brings before the court is not his own but the corporation's.2 It is the real

Page 523

party in interest and he is allowed to act in protection of its interest somewhat as a 'next friend' might do for an individual, because it is disabled from protecting itself. If, however, such a case as this were treated as other actions, the federal court would realign the parties for jurisdictional purposes according to their real interests. In this case, which is typical of many, this would put Lumbermens on the plaintiff's side. Illinois corporations would then appear among plaintiffs and among defendants, and jurisdiction would be ousted. City of Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank of City of New York, 314 U.S. 63, 62 S.Ct. 15, 86 L.Ed. 47. But jurisdiction is saved in this class of cases by a special dispensation because the corporation is in antagonistic hands. Doctor v. Harrington, 196 U.S. 579, 25 S.Ct. 355, 49 L.Ed. 606.

Plaintiffs also, as in this case, often have only a small financial interest in a large controversy. Plaintiffs, like this one, if their own financial stake were the test, sometimes do not have a sufficient individual interest to make up the required jurisdictional amount. Again this class of cases is favored with the fiction that plaintiffs' possible recovery is not the measure of the amount involved for jurisdictional purposes but that the test is the damage asserted to have been sustained by the defendant corporation. Hence, although a plaintiff's own interest may be small, if the conditions laid down by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723, for secondary actions by

Page 524

shareholders are complied with and jurisdiction is established, the federal courts are empowered to entertain the case. But the peculiarities of such actions should not be overlooked.

Where there are only two parties to a dispute, the e is good reason why it should be tried in the plaintiff's home forum if that has been his choice. He should not be deprived of the presumed advantages of his home jurisdiction except upon a clear showing of facts which either (1) establish such oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant as to be out of all proportion to plaintiff's convenience, which may be shown to be slight or nonexistent, or (2) make trial in the chosen forum inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own administrative and legal problems. In any balancing of conveniences, a real showing of convenience by a plaintiff who has sued in his home forum will normally outweigh the inconvenience the defendant may have shown. But where there are hundreds of potential plaintiffs, all equally entitled voluntarily to invest themselves with the corporation's cause of action and all of whom could with equal show of right go into their many home courts, the claim of any one plaintiff that a forum is appropriate merely because it is his home forum is considerably weakened.3 Such a plaintiff often may represent an important public and stockholder interest in bringing faithless managers to book. The nature of the secondary action is such that without

Page 525

invitation from other stockholders and without their approval or supervision, the plaintiff volunteers in a position that itself creates something of a fiduciary relationship.

While, even in the ordinary action, the residence of the suitor will not fix the proper forum without reference to other considerations, it is a fact of 'high significance.' International Milling Co. v. Columbia Transportation Co., 292 U.S. 511, 520, 54 S.Ct. 797, 799, 78 L.Ed. 1396. But, in derivative actions, although the plaintiff may have a substantial interest of his own to protect, he may also be a mere phantom plaintiff with interest enough to enable him to institute the action and little more. He may have taken some active part in the corporate affairs, or have personal knowledge of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1058 practice notes
  • Ross v. Bernhard, No. 42
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 2, 1970
    ...pressed by the stockholder against directors or third parties 'is not his own but the corporation's.' Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 522, 67 S.Ct. 828, 831 (1947). The corporation is a necessary party to the action; without it the case cannot proceed. Although named a def......
  • In re Cinar Corp. Securities Litigation, No. MDL 00-1362(RJD).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • February 25, 2002
    ...cases Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947) and Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947). See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981); Guidi v. Inter-Con......
  • Rudetsky v. O'DOWD, No. 86-CV-3870 (JBW).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • May 15, 1987
    ...where the place of trial will "best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice." Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 527, 67 S.Ct. 828, 833, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947). Because the factors relevant to that inquiry are heavily oriented to the individual case, "f......
  • Jeffries v. Olesen, No. 15779.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • May 13, 1954
    ...else default in the defense of his property right. See 28 U.S.C.A. 121 F. Supp. 476 §§ 1391-1406; Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Co., 1947, 330 U.S. 518, 527, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 1947, 330 U.S. 501, 507-509, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055; Neirbo Co. v. Bethleh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1052 cases
  • In re Assicurazioni Generali S.P.A. Holocaust Ins., No. MDL 1374.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • September 25, 2002
    ...Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947), Koster v.(Am.) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 531-32, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947), and Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n. 6, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981). "[T......
  • Ross v. Bernhard, No. 42
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 2, 1970
    ...pressed by the stockholder against directors or third parties 'is not his own but the corporation's.' Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 522, 67 S.Ct. 828, 831 (1947). The corporation is a necessary party to the action; without it the case cannot proceed. Although named a def......
  • In re Cinar Corp. Securities Litigation, No. MDL 00-1362(RJD).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • February 25, 2002
    ...cases Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947) and Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947). See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981); Guidi v. Inter-Con......
  • Picard v. Estate (Succession) of Doris Igoin (In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC), Case No. 08–99000 SMB
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Second Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 13, 2015
    ...Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981), in turn quoting Koster v. (Am.) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947) )). The forum non conveniens analysis calls for a three-step approach. First, the court must determ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • FORD'S UNDERLYING CONTROVERSY.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 Nbr. 4, April 2022
    • April 1, 2022
    ...U.S.C. [section] 1404(a)). (26.) Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255-56 (1981). (27.) Koster v. (Am.) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524 (1947) ("Where there are only two parties to a dispute, there is good reason why [the case] should be tried in the plaintiff's home fo......
  • Rethinking legal globalization: the case of transnational personal jurisdiction.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 54 Nbr. 5, April 2013
    • April 1, 2013
    ...v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., which the Court decided the same day, stated different facts but the same legal principles. 330 U.S. 518, 519-21, 531-32 (1947). Although the Court did not mention the doctrine by name, one precursor appeared in Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson St......

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