McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION v. Polin, 18797
| Decision Date | 10 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | 18798.,No. 18797,18797 |
| Citation | 429 F.2d 30 |
| Parties | McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION et al., Petitioners, v. Howard POLIN, Respondent, and The Honorable A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., Nominal Respondent, and Louis J. Cutrona, Richard D. Mange, R. A. Olsen, William D. Prosnitz and Keeve M. Siegel, Additional Nominal Respondents. CONDUCTRON CORPORATION et al., Petitioner, v. Howard POLIN, Respondent, and The Honorable A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., Nominal Respondent, and Louis J. Cutrona, R. A. Olsen, Richard D. Mange, Keeve M. Siegel and William D. Prosnitz, Additional Nominal Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Veryl L. Riddle, Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, St. Louis, Mo. (Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., Donald A. Scott, Howard L. Shecter, Philadelphia, Pa., Thomas S. McPheeters, Jr., St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for petitioners.
William T. Coleman, Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Kohn & Levy (Edward F. Mannino, Harold E. Kohn, Philadelphia, Pa., Marcus Manoff, Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for respondent.
Before GANEY, FREEDMAN and SEITZ, Circuit Judges.
These petitions for writs of mandamus seek to compel the nominal respondent either "(1) to transfer the cases pending in the district court to the Eastern District of Missouri, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or (2) rule finally upon the motion for transfer prior to the commencement of discovery upon the merits of the action."
The lower court held that all matters of discovery should be fully completed before any action is taken on the said motion pending inquiry into the merits thereof either by discovery or by preliminary rulings on questions of law.
To undertake a consideration of the merits of the action is to assume, even temporarily, that there will be no transfer before the transfer issue is decided. Judicial economy requires that another district court should not burden itself with the merits of the action until it is decided that a transfer should be effected and such consideration additionally requires that the court which ultimately decides the merits of the action should also decide the various questions which arise during the pendency of the suit instead of considering it in two courts.
Therefore, we feel it is not proper to postpone consideration of the application for transfer under § 1404(a) until discovery on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Howmedica Osteonics Corp
...discovery on the merits "is irrelevant to the determination of the preliminary question of transfer." McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Polin, 429 F.2d 30, 30-31 (3d Cir. 1970) (per curiam); accord Wood v. Zapata Corp., 482 F.2d 350, 357 (3d Cir. 1973).7 To the extent we recognized the "practical ......
-
Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.
...court's failure to rule on motion to amend complaint before granting summary judgment abuse of discretion); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Polin, 429 F.2d 30, 31 (3d Cir.1970) (directing district court to consider and rule on motion to transfer before discovery on the merits of the case (but af......
-
Sierra Rutile Ltd. v. Katz
...& Co., Inc., 761 F.2d 198, 204 (5th Cir.1985); see also Nixon v. Richey, 513 F.2d 427, 430 (D.C.Cir.1975); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Polin, 429 F.2d 30, 31 (3d Cir.1970). Although mandamus is reserved for exceptional cases, see Von Bulow, 828 F.2d at 96 (citation omitted), we believe that ......
-
Madden v. Myers
...(which fortunately occurs infrequently) where cases have been unduly delayed in the district court. See, e.g., McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Polin, 429 F.2d 30, 30-31 (3rd Cir.1970) (ordering district court not to defer ruling on a motion for transfer until all discovery was We have also held ......