Standard v. Stoll Packing Corporation
| Decision Date | 16 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 7220. |
| Citation | 210 F. Supp. 749 |
| Parties | Allen W. STANDARD v. STOLL PACKING CORPORATION and Polar Truck Rental Corporation. Paula STANDARD and Saundra Standard, Minors, by their Guardian, Allen W. Standard, and Alvis B. Standard, Plaintiffs, v. STOLL PACKING CORPORATION and Polar Truck Rental Corporation, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Allen W. STANDARD, Third-Party Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
Wirtzman, Sikov & Love, Pittsburgh, Pa., John H. Broujos, Carlisle, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Hurwitz, Klein, Meyers & Benjamin, Harrisburg, Pa., for defendants.
Dowling & Dowling, Harrisburg, Pa., for third-party defendant.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion to transfer the proceedings from this District to the Western District of Pennsylvania. Defendant opposes it.
The accident occurred August 7, 1960, on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Franklin County in the Middle District. Suit was instituted in the Middle District on March 10, 1961. Plaintiffs were at the time of instituting suit, and still are, residents of Charleroi in the Western District. Both defendants are New Jersey corporations. The witness to the accident lives at Newburg, Pennsylvania, and the State Trooper who is a material witness is stationed at Newville, Pennsylvania. The witnesses therefore are even closer to Harrisburg where the case is listed for trial than the point of the accident, are in close proximity to the Pennsylvania Turnpike and within easy access to Harrisburg. The physician who treated the parties after the accident lives at McConnellsburg in close proximity to the Turnpike in this District and considerably closer to Harrisburg than to Pittsburgh.
The case was on the May Term, 1962, Trial List and was continued at the request of the plaintiffs on the representation that the depositions of their expert witnesses would be completed by the October 1962 Term. With the case well up on the Trial List, on October 16, 1962, about fifteen days before the Term, nineteen months after the institution of suit, and after a continuance from the May to the October 1962 Term, the plaintiffs filed their motion to transfer. The situation as to plaintiffs' witnesses, medical and otherwise, is no different to-day than it was when they voluntarily instituted suit in this District. In the mean-time, counsel for defendants have prepared for trial in this District. To transfer the proceedings at this stage would definitely and unjustifiably delay the trial.
Wh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calkins v. Dollarland, Inc.
...communication"); Market Transition, 941 F.Supp. at 468 (denying motion to transfer from Newark to Brooklyn); Standard v. Stoll Packing Corp., 210 F.Supp. 749, 750 (M.D.Pa.1962) (denying motion to transfer, "[c]onsidering the proximity of Pittsburgh and Harrisburg"). Moreover, Dollarland mai......
-
Mims v. Proctor and Gamble Distributing Company
...Lines, Inc., 91 F.Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y.1950); Cressman v. United Air Lines, Inc., 158 F.Supp. 404 (S.D. N.Y.1958); Standard v. Stoll Packing Corp., 210 F.Supp. 749 (M.D.Pa.1962). In White v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp., 86 F.Supp. 910 (E.D.S.C. 1949), Judge C. C. Wyche of the Western Dis......
-
Roberts Brothers, Inc. v. Kurtz Bros.
...be denied. The burden of establishing that the action should be transferred is, of course, upon the moving party. Standard v. Stoll Packing Corp., 210 F.Supp. 749 (M.D.Pa.1962); Biedrzycki v. Alcoa Steamship Co., 191 F.Supp. 895 (E.D. While a District Court may within its discretion transfe......
-
Norfolk Ship. & Dry. Corp. v. Motor Yacht La Belle Simone
...General Controls Corp., 225 F.Supp. 971 (D.C.N.Y.1964); Leyden v. Excello Corp., 188 F.Supp. 396 (D.C.N. J.1960); Standard v. Stoll Packing Corp., 210 F.Supp. 749 (D.C.Pa.1962); app. dismd., 315 F.2d 626 (CA3 1962), and Hercules, In addition, Norfolk Ship argued that the Broussard case is i......