Sher v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 28 March 1963 |
| Citation | 216 F. Supp. 123 |
| Parties | Irene SHER, Plaintiff, v. James M. JOHNSTON and Atlantic Research Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Israel Beckhardt, New York City, for plaintiff.
Satterlee, Warfield & Stephens, New York City, for defendants; Henry J. Formon, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
This is a motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, "for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice" (28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a)).
The action is under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.A. § 78p(b)) to recover for the benefit of defendant Atlantic Research Corporation ("Atlantic") "short swing" profits alleged to have been made by defendant Johnston, a director of Atlantic, from purchases and sales of Atlantic shares, these being registered on the American Stock Exchange in New York City (a "national securities exchange").
Plaintiff is a resident of Connecticut. Atlantic is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in Alexandria, Virginia; it has no office or records in this District. Defendant Johnston is a resident of the District of Columbia and has no office or place of business in this District.
The moving papers show that prior to the commencement of this action two actions had been commenced in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, against Atlantic, Johnston and other defendants. The moving affidavits assert that these Virginia actions "contain claims identical to the claims in the instant case". It appears that one of the Virginia actions includes a claim under Section 16(b) against Johnston, which is alleged very generally but which would seem to include the claim in the case at bar; the other Virginia action does not appear to contain any such claim.
There is no connection between the case at bar and New York. Unlike Blau v. Lamb, 20 F.R.D. 411 (SDNY 1957), it is not alleged in the complaint, nor showing otherwise made, that the transactions by Johnston in Atlantic shares were executed on the American Stock Exchange. It is highly doubtful therefore, that venue in this District is proper in any event (28 U.S.C.A. § 78aa).
Under the circumstances here present, transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia is indicated. See Ackert v. Ausman, 108 F.Supp. 538 (SDNY 1961).
It is true that in Blau v. Lamb (above), Judge Dimock...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schneider v. Sears
...of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1966, Table C 10. 37 See Sher v. Johnston, 216 F.Supp. 123, 124 (S.D.N.Y.1963). ...
-
Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 26168.
...265 F.Supp. 257 (S.D.N.Y.1967); Axe-Houghton Fund A, Inc. v. Atlantic Research Corp., 227 F.Supp. 521 (S.D.N.Y. 1964); Sher v. Johnston, 216 F.Supp. 123 (S.D.N.Y.1963); Polaroid Corp. v. Casselman, 213 F.Supp. 379 (S.D.N.Y. The plaintiff\'s statutory privilege of choosing his forum is a fac......
-
Rothenberg v. Silberman
...will not even be required to appear in the proceedings, would call for exercise of discretion in favor of transfer. Sher v. Johnston, 216 F.Supp. 123 (S.D.N.Y. 1963). Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss the action is granted without prejudice to plaintiff's institution of the suit in......
-
Blau v. TOOL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING CORPORATION
...clause (hereinafter, the "violations clause") of § 78aa. Peyser v. Meehan Fund, Inc., 264 F.Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1966); Sher v. Johnston, 216 F.Supp. 123 (S.D.N.Y. 1963); Blau v. Lamb, 20 F.R.D. 411 (S.D.N.Y. 1957). See also Rothenberg v. Silberman, 278 F.Supp. 116, 119 (S.D.N.Y. In opposition......