Sheldon v. Amperex Electronic Corporation
| Decision Date | 08 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 91,Docket 71-1501.,91 |
| Citation | 449 F.2d 146 |
| Parties | Edward Emanuel SHELDON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMPEREX ELECTRONIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Morris Relson, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Sidney David, Newark, N. J. (Lerner, David & Littenberg, Newark, N. J., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, MANSFIELD and OAKES, Circuit Judges.
This appeal raises the question of whether a plaintiff may, pursuant to Rule 41(a) (1) (i), F.R.Civ.P., voluntarily dismiss an action against one defendant after it has been severed from a multi-defendant suit. We hold that he may do so and affirm the district court's decision denying the motion of Amperex Electronics Corporation seeking to strike the dismissal, essentially for the reasons set forth by Judge Zavatt in his opinion, 52 F.R.D. 1 (E.D.N.Y. March 29, 1971).
Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal represents one more maneuver in a protracted conflict between the parties with respect to the forum in which the merits of the patent issues between them are to be tried. Plaintiff chose the Northern District of Illinois, where it brought suit in March of 1969 against the manufacturer and supplier of the alleged infringing TV tube (Amperex), an alleged seller of the product (Newark Electronics Corporation), and two alleged users (Field Communication Corporation and W.L.S. Radio). Amperex prefers to have the issues tried in New York, where it has its principal place of business and plaintiff resides.
Defendants made several motions in the Illinois action, directed principally to the issue of venue in the Northern District. As a result W.L.S. Radio was dropped as a defendant and American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. was substituted in its place. After plaintiff had conducted discovery on the venue issue and entered its opposition to the remaining motions the district court denied them. Thereupon the defendants sought mandamus in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. That Court found venue improper as to Amperex under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), and ordered that the action against Amperex be transferred to the Eastern District of New York and severed from that against the remaining defendants, and that the latter suit be stayed pending disposition of the transferred action. Plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed its action against Amperex, which promptly moved to strike the dismissal and simultaneously brought an independent declaratory judgment action against pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Database America v. Bellsouth Advertising & Pub.
...Enter., Inc., 619 F.Supp. 682, 682-83 n. 1 (N.D.Ill.1985); Sheldon v. Amperex Elec. Corp., 52 F.R.D. 1, 5 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 449 F.2d 146 (2d Cir.1971)). If the rule were otherwise, no court would have jurisdiction over the transferred case from the time the order of transfer was filed by t......
-
Gordon v. National Youth Work Alliance
...Harvester Corp., 70 F.R.D. 691, 692 (N.D.Ill.1976); Sheldon v. Amperex Elecs. Corp., 52 F.R.D. 1, 10 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 449 F.2d 146 (2d Cir. 1971); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice § 1366 at 676 (1969); 2A J. Moore & J. Lucas, Federal Practice P 12.09 at 2297 (1981). Certainly the......
-
Baiul v. NBC Sports, of NBC Universal Media LLC
...Pls.' Reply Mem. at 1, 5-7, ECF No. 43), is without any basis in law or fact. The Second Circuit's decision in Sheldon v. Amperex Elec. Corp., 449 F.2d 146 (2d Cir. 1971), which held that a plaintiff could properly file a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) against a defendant......
-
Arndt v. Ubs Ag
...granted even where parties engaged in extensive discovery but prior to service of answer or motion for summary judgment), aff'd, 449 F.2d 146 (2d Cir.1971). Accordingly, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(i), the Court dismisses the claims of the Trustees of Farben without II. Subject Matter......