Richards v. Upjohn Co., Civ. A. No. 5-72144.

Decision Date03 February 1976
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 5-72144.
Citation406 F. Supp. 405
PartiesJayne RICHARDS and Donald A. Richards, Plaintiffs, v. UPJOHN COMPANY, a Corporation of the State of Michigan, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

David A. Maxon, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs.

James G. Smith, Kitch & Suhrheinrich, Detroit, Mich., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOINER, District Judge.

This is an action by citizens of Massachusetts to recover damages allegedly received from a drug manufactured by the defendant in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Defendant is a foreign corporation that has its principal place of business in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and it is licensed to do business in Michigan. It maintains an office for the sale and production of urethane in Wayne County, Michigan, within this district. Jurisdiction is grounded solely upon diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of venue or, alternatively, for transfer to the Western District of Michigan for the convenience of defendant and its witnesses.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), a corporate defendant "resides" for venue purposes in any district where "it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business." There is some controversy, however, about whether section 1391(c) authorizes suit against a foreign corporate defendant in every district of a multi-district state in which it is licensed to do business. See 1 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 80 (1971 Supp.); 1 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 0.1425. — 1 — 3, at 1407 n.31; Annot., 14 A.L.R.F. 938 (1973). Thus, some courts have held that a foreign corporation which is licensed to do business statewide resides, for purposes of venue, in only those districts in which it is actually doing business. See, e. g., Educational Development Corp. v. Economy Co., 376 F.Supp. 287 (N.D.Okla.1973).

This court believes that the language of section 1391(c) clearly and unambiguously authorizes suit in any district of a state in which the corporate defendant is licensed to do business statewide. This basis for venue exists independently of the corporate defendant's district of incorporation and of its principal place of business. The construction of section 1391(c) that is urged in Educational Development Corp., supra, reads out of the statute the words "licensed to do business" as a basis for venue because it requires in each instance that the corporation be "doing business" in the district before venue will lie. Such a construction strains the clear meaning of the terms of the statute.

Under Michigan law, the defendant is licensed to do business throughout the state. MCL §§...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • De La Fuente v. ICC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • June 5, 1978
    ...is licensed to do business state-wide it is amenable to suit in any district in that state. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c); Richards v. Upjohn Co., 406 F.Supp. 405 (E.D.Mich.1976); Garbe v. Humiston-Keeling & Company, 143 F.Supp. 776, 778-79 (E.D.Ill.1956) rev'd on other grounds, 242 F.2d 923 (7th Cir......
  • TerKeurst v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • July 7, 1982
    ...by not transferring the case to the District of Idaho. In support of her argument, plaintiff refers to Richards v. Upjohn Co., 406 F.Supp. 405, 406-407 (E.D.Mich.1976) for the proposition that a defendant must point to a "specific hardship" such as the number of witnesses who would be incon......
  • Shapiro v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Civ. A. No. C-1-85-0625.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • February 25, 1986
    ...district. Rather, defendant needs to demonstrate that a large volume of documentary evidence must be transported, Richards v. Upjohn Co., 406 F.Supp. 405 (E.D.Mich.1976), and that it is not possible to reduce the volume through other discovery techniques. In this case there has been no show......
  • Titan Atlas Mfg. Inc. v. Sisk
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • August 22, 2011
    ...transferee district. Instead, the defendant must show that a large volume of records must be transported. See Richards v. Upjohn Co., 406 F. Supp. 405 (E.D. Mich. 1976). Here, the defendants have not stated that the evidence that is located in Illinois would be so voluminous as to create a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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