Microtran Co., Inc. v. Midcom, Inc.
Decision Date | 14 June 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 76 C 514.,76 C 514. |
Citation | 414 F. Supp. 1103 |
Parties | MICROTRAN COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. MIDCOM, INC., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Bert K. Leffert, Mineola, N.Y., Paul S. Rosensweig, Brookville, N.Y., for plaintiff.
Nims, Howes, Collison & Isner, New York City, for defendant.
Dorsey, Windhorst, Hannaford, Whitney & Halladay, Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel, for defendant.
This action was commenced by a corporation, organized and doing business pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, against a foreign corporation, organized and doing business pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota. The action is one alleging violations of the federal copyright laws.
The defendant prior to interposing its answer moves for an order dismissing the action for lack of proper venue and personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer to the District Court of Minnesota.
The basis of plaintiff's jurisdiction is pursuant to the Long-Arm Statute, CPLR Sect. 302(a)(3)(ii). The instant action, commenced by service upon the defendant in Minnesota pursuant to said section permits the exercise of jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary where he commits:
Venue for copyright actions is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(a) which provides:
"Civil actions, suits, or proceedings arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found."
In Kogan v. Longstreet, 374 F.Supp. 47, the court held in part at page 50:
The court further held in part at pages 50-51:
In the case at bar, the pleadings and exhibits establish that the plaintiff has fulfilled the elements of CPLR Sect. 302(a)(3)(ii).
The allegations of a tortious act, namely pirating of copyright material without the state, causing injury within the state. Defendant apparently derives substantial revenue from interstate if not from international commerce, but denies its expectation of forum consequences.
In Gonzales v. Harris Calorific Co., Inc., 64 Misc.2d 287, 315 N.Y.S.2d 51, the court held in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
AMF, INC. v. Computer Automation, Inc.
...shift inconvenience from the Defendant to the Plaintiff.14 In such a situation, transfer is inappropriate. Microtran Co., Inc. v. Midcom, Inc., 414 F.Supp. 1103, 1105 (E.D.N.Y.1976). Based on the foregoing analysis, which indicates that transfer is not required to compel the attendance of w......
-
Vassallo v. Niedermeyer
...plaintiff. Transfer is inappropriate where it would merely shift inconvenience from defendants to plaintiff. Microtan Co. v. Midcom, Inc., 414 F.Supp. 1103, 1105 (E.D.N.Y.1976). Moreover, plaintiff claims to be suffering from serious medical difficulties which he alleges were sustained in t......