Sinclair Oil Corporation v. Union Oil Co. of California

• Decision Date: 07 May 1969
• Docket Number: No. 68 Civil 3261,68 Civil 3412.,68 Civil 3261
• Citation: 305 F. Supp. 903
• Parties: SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA and Varian Associates, Defendants. HIROCA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA and Varian Associates, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

305 F. Supp. 903

SINCLAIR OIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA and Varian Associates, Defendants.

HIROCA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA and Varian Associates, Defendants.

Nos. 68 Civil 3261, 68 Civil 3412.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 7, 1969.

McLean, Morton & Boustead, New York City, for plaintiffs, Roger T. McLean, Henry W. Foulds, Jr., New York City, of counsel.

Brumbaugh, Graves, Donohue & Raymond, New York City, Lyon & Lyon, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants, Mark N. Donohue, New York City, Richard E. Lyon, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel.

OPINION

HERLANDS, District Judge:

Defendants have moved to transfer this consolidated action to the Central District of California, or, alternatively, to the Northern District of California "for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice * * *." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (1964). For the reasons stated below, the Court denies the motion.

This action is one for a judgment declaring invalid and non-infringed various patents held by defendant Varian Associates, and exclusively licensed to defendant Union Oil Company of California. The product embodying the patented inventions was developed and manufactured by Varian in Palo Alto, California. Plaintiffs' system, which employed the assertedly infringing device, was developed and used in various states, including New York and California, though it is claimed that no significant development or use occurred in California. Affidavit of Robert R. Chambers, sworn to December 27, 1968, § 8. This system was manufactured in a few states, not including New York and California. Chambers Affidavit, § 8. Apparently, much, if not most, of plaintiffs' activities respecting their system is centered in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Defendants have the heavy burden of making a "clear-cut showing that when all the interests are considered, trial would more conveniently proceed" in the proposed transferee district. Peyser v. General Motors Corporation, 158 F. Supp. 526, 529 (S.D.N.Y.1958). Defendants, in the main, however, have attempted to sustain this burden by showing the Southern District of New York to be an inconvenient forum—one basically unrelated to the principal issues in the litigation.

Though it is recognized that determination of this motion involves the balancing of competing interests and considerations, a conclusion that the balance tips in favor of the proposed transferee district cannot be based solely on a negative showing of inconvenience in the present forum, but must be based on an appropriate affirmative showing that the proposed transferee district offers greater convenience. E.g., Oil & Gas Ventures—First 1958 Fund, Ltd. v. Kung, 250 F.Supp. 744, 755 (S.D.N.Y. 1966).

The Court concludes that the three conclusory affidavits filed in support of this motion fail to establish factually that the Central or Northern Districts of California would be more convenient.

These affidavits assert generally (1) that all Union Oil officials, records, and witnesses with regard to...