Lee v. Hunt, Civ. A. No. 75-423.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 75-423. |
| Parties | Mrs. Frania Tye LEE v. Ray Lee HUNT, Testamentary Executor of the Ancillary Succession of H. L. Hunt. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
Wallace A. Hunter, Roger M. Fritchie, L. Michael Cooper, Durrett, Hardin, Hunter, Dameron & Fritchie, Baton Rouge, La., for plaintiff.
Lawrence E. Donohoe, Jr., Davidson, Meaux, Onebane, Donohoe, Bernard, Torian & Diaz, Lafayette, La., D. L. Case, Jackson, Walker, Winstead, Cantwell & Miller, Dallas, Tex., for defendant.
ON REHEARING
This case originally came before the Court on March 17, 1976, when arguments were heard on defendant's motion to dismiss, or alternatively to abstain in favor of a State Court determination of the issues, or as a third alternative, to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. After hearing, the Court concluded that the case should be transferred to Dallas, Texas, and so ordered on April 8, 1976. On April 9, 1976, pursuant to plaintiff's motion for a stay order, the Court issued an order staying the transfer of the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas, Texas, pending the filing by the plaintiff of an application or motion for rehearing. The plaintiff's motion for rehearing was filed on April 20, 1976, and briefs were subsequently filed by counsel for both parties. In view of the detailed and exhaustive briefs filed, no further oral argument was required. The matter is now before the Court for reconsideration of its prior order transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff strenuously argues that if this case cannot be heard in the Middle District of Louisiana, it should be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana instead of the Northern District of Texas. Defendant, of course, argues the validity of the Court's prior order.
As pointed out by this Court in its original opinion of April 8, 1976:
"(a) A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose." Title 28, United States Code, Section 1391(a).
A careful reconsideration of this case once again leads the Court to the conclusion that venue is not properly laid in the Middle District of Louisiana. For the reasons stated in our original opinion of April 8, 1976, we conclude once again that no party to this suit is domiciled for the purposes of jurisdiction in this District, nor did the plaintiff's claim arise here. There is also no doubt but that the defendant is domiciled in Dallas, Texas, which fact would make it possible for the plaintiff, under Section 1391(a), to bring her suit there. But she chooses not to do so. In view of this Court's prior ruling, her first choice now is to bring her suit in the Western District of Louisiana. The defendant is not domiciled there, nor is the plaintiff domiciled there, but the plaintiff contends that that is where her claim arose. If it did, she would, under Section 1391(a), be entitled to bring her action there if she chose to do so. The defendant takes the position that no weight should be attached to the plaintiff's present election to bring her suit in the Western District of Louisiana because, he says, her first choice was the Middle District of Louisiana and she is not to be accorded a preference more than once. There is, of course, no merit to such an argument. It is obvious that had the plaintiff known that the Court would not permit her to bring her suit in the Middle District of Louisiana, she would have brought it in the Western District of Louisiana to begin with. So now, as of this time, the Western District of Louisiana must be considered as plaintiff's choice of forum, and there is no doubt but that great weight must be given to her choice. See Schutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22 (CA 3-1970); William A. Smith Contracting Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 467 F.2d 662 (CA 10-1972). The only question to be decided is whether or not her claim can be said to have arisen in the Western District of Louisiana. If it did, she should be permitted to elect that Court as her preferred forum. After careful reconsideration of this record, and after a careful reading of the plaintiff's very lengthy deposition, which has been filed in the record of this case, we now conclude, from that evidence, that the cause of action upon which this suit is based can be fairly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. Hunt
...determining that venue did lie in the Western District of Louisiana, he transferred the case to the Shreveport Division. Lee v. Hunt, 415 F.Supp. 245 (M.D.La.1976). Complete analysis of the defendant's motion requires examination of five (1) Jurisdiction over the person; (2) Subject matter ......
-
Ammon v. Kaplow
...is entitled to great weight and may not lightly be set aside. Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22 (3rd Cir. 1970); Lee v. Hunt, 415 F.Supp. 245 (M.D.La.1976); Umbriac v. American Snacks, Inc., 379 F.Supp. 627 (E.D.Pa. 1974); Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Stearns-Roger, Inc., 379 F.Supp. 86......
-
Lee v. Hunt
...to in the record as "Hue R. Lee," "Hue R. Hunt," and "Hugh Lee Hunt." 2 See Lee v. Hunt, 431 F.Supp. 371 (W.D.La. 1977); Lee v. Hunt, 415 F.Supp. 245 (M.D.La. 1976). See also this Court's Memorandum Rulings of December 14, 1977, January 10, 1978, January 11, 1978, January 12, 1978, and Janu......
-
Lee v. Hunt
...After lengthy litigation on jurisdiction, venue and related matters, Lee v. Hunt, 410 F.Supp. 329 (M.D.La.1976); Lee v. Hunt, 415 F.Supp. 245 (M.D.La.1976); Lee v. Hunt, 431 F.Supp. 371 (W.D.La.1977), the matter was finally tried before a jury between January 9 and January 16, 1978. On Janu......