Teets v. Hawker
Decision Date | 25 January 1968 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C-67-12-M. |
Citation | 278 F. Supp. 834 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
Parties | Lydia TEETS, Plaintiff, v. Frederick G. HAWKER and George Ellman Diven, Defendants. |
John M. Miller, Martinsburg, W. Va., John M. Court, Newport News, Va., for plaintiff.
Clarence E. Martin, Jr., Martinsburg, W. Va., for defendant Hawker.
William H. Ansel, Jr., Romney, W. Va., for defendant Diven.
The plaintiff, Lydia Teets, in this civil action is a resident and citizen of the State of Virginia. On April 18, 1965, she claims she was a passenger in a car owned and operated by Frederick G. Hawker, a citizen of West Virginia, which was proceeding westward on U. S. Route 50 in Hampshire County, West Virginia. The Hawker car collided with an automobile operated by George E. Diven which was proceeding eastward on U. S. Route 50, and as a result of this collision the plaintiff suffered injuries which are the reason of this action.
The complaint was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia on March 29, 1967, alleging jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship. Defendant Diven, appearing by counsel, "demurred" to the complaint and filed an answer which generally denied liability. Although the summons and complaint were served on Diven personally in Maryland he did not raise any question as to service of process, sufficiency of process, or venue, and has therefore waived these defenses.1
Defendant Hawker, who was personally served at Morgantown, West Virginia, appeared by counsel and made motions to quash the return of service and to dismiss the action, alleging lack of personal jurisdiction. After these motions by Hawker, plaintiff asked leave to amend her complaint and to transfer the suit to the Northern District of West Virginia.
At a hearing on these motions before the Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, on June 20, 1967, the return of service of process and summons on Hawker was quashed. On the same day an order was entered transferring the action to this Court. After the transfer to this District, and pursuant to the request of plaintiff, Hawker was served with process issued by this District's Clerk's office, and service was returned showing the defendant had been constructively served on August 21, 1967.
The case is now before this Court on defendant Hawker's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or venue. The defendant contends that the United States Court for the Eastern District of Virginia did not have the power to transfer his case to this District because that Court did not have jurisdiction over his person.
The question of whether a court needs personal jurisdiction over a defendant in order to transfer an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) reached the United States Supreme Court in Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 82 S.Ct. 913, 8 L.Ed.2d 39 (1962). The Court stated regarding § 1406(a):
The Goldlawr case is distinguishable from the instant case, inasmuch as the venue in Goldlawr was improper, whereas the venue in the present case was proper, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, because of plaintiff's residence being in Virginia. In a companion case to Goldlawr, Hohensee v. News Syndicate, Inc., 286 F.2d 527 (3rd Cir. 1961), in which venue was proper, but there was no jurisdiction over the defendant, transfer under § 1406(a) was denied in the lower courts. On appeal to the Supreme Court the judgment was vacated and the case remanded for consideration in light of Goldlawr. 369 U.S. 659, 82 S.Ct. 1035, 8 L.Ed.2d 273 (1962).
Defendant, in his memorandum, cites the case of Skilling v. Funk Aircraft Co., 173 F.Supp. 939 (W.D.Mo.1959). In that case, on facts similar to those in this case, transfer under § 1406(a) was denied. This Court, in considering Skilling, believes that determination must be considered in light of the fact that Skilling preceded the Supreme Court's ruling in Goldlawr. The case of Selsby v. Vecchione, 216 F.Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y.1963), has facts similar to those in this case and was subsequent to the Goldlawr decision. The Selsby court refused to transfer a case under § 1406(a) stating: Supra at 207, 208.
However, at least two other cases have held that even though venue was proper, § 1406(a) still applies.
In the case of Peoples Bank & Trust Co. v. Rue, 210 F.Supp. 952 (N.D.Iowa 1962), in which venue was proper, the court transferred the cause under § 1406 (a) citing Goldlawr as authority. Another case with facts "four square" with the instant case is Kaiser v. Mayo Clinic, 260 F.Supp. 900 (D.Minn.1966). In the Kaiser case, the court presents an excellent review and discussion of the issue raised here, as well as a scholarly and worthwhile evaluation of the opposing positions taken by various courts. The defendant in Kaiser argued that § 1406 (a) was not applicable since venue was proper in Illinois, the plaintiff's residence and the transferor state. The Minnesota court ruled that the Illinois court had the power to transfer the case stating: Supra at 903.
This Court believes that the Rue and Kaiser opinions, both in reasoning and position, best represent the dominant and better view, both of the Circuit Courts of Appeal as well as the spirit of the Supreme Court's ruling in Goldlawr. The Court believes that the law and philosophy of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is stated in Internatio-Rotterdam, Inc. v. Thomsen, 218 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1955). Although Internatio-Rotterdam was an admiralty case, the Court stated: "There can be no question, we think, but that these provisions of the Judicial Code §§ 1404 and 1406 apply to suits in admiralty as well as to other cases in courts." Supra 515. Even though the facts are different from those present here, the issue is very similar, that is, "whether the District Court for the Southern District of New York had power, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), to transfer the proceedings in which process had not been served to another jurisdiction, so that process might be served and libellants be given relief with respect to their claims." Supra at 515. The Fourth Circuit answered this question in the affirmative.
The procedural characteristic of Internatio-Rotterdam, supported by Goldlawr, is that "such transfer is in accord with modern standards of procedure, the purpose of which is to get away from the time-consuming and justice defeating technicalities and secure an adjudication of the rights of the parties by as direct and as expeditious a route as possible." Supra at 517.
While in the instant case it is not clear whether the transfer was under § 1404(a) or § 1406(a), this court believes it makes no difference. The order transferring the cause only stated, "and doth sustain the motion to transfer the action as aforesaid * * *" The motion by the plaintiff for leave to amend and transfer reads in part, "for leave to amend her complaint in order that the same may be tried in a more convenient forum" which would seem to indicate a motion under § 1404(a). Another motion, on the same page as the above motion, seeks a continuance of the motion to quash and dismiss "* * * for the reason that a problem of bringing all the necessary parties before the court for the trial of this action to meet the demands of justice requires venue to be transferred to * * *" This language is more characteristic of § 1406 (a).
This Court agrees with the reasoning of those courts which make no distinction between the Goldlawr's reasoning as applied in § 1406(a) and § 1404(a). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mulcahy v. Guertler
...Southern R. Co. v. Allied Chemical Co., 312 F.Supp. 3 (E.D. Va.1970); Rosen v. Sohn, 289 F.Supp. 958 (S.D. N.Y.1968); Teets v. Hawker, 278 F.Supp. 834 (N.D.W.Va.1968); Founds v. Shedaker, 278 F.Supp. 32 (E.D.Pa.1968); McKee v. Anderson, 272 F.Supp. 684 (W.D.Mo.1967); Color Technique, Inc. v......
-
United States ex rel. Jimenez v. Conboy, 70 Civil 285.
...533 (1970); Mayo Clinic v. Kaiser, 383 F.2d 653 (8th Cir. 1967); Dubin v. United States, 380 F.2d 813 (5th Cir. 1967); Teets v. Hawker, 278 F.Supp. 834 (N.D.W.Va.1968). But see Universal Mfg. Co. v. Lewis, 381 F.2d 819 (4th Cir. 1967) (per curiam) (semble); Selsby v. Vecchione, 216 F.Supp. ......
-
Robinson v. Carroll, C-96-D-69.
...the appropriate district court in Pennsylvania. Goldlawr, supra; Smith v. Murchison, 310 F.Supp. 1079 (W.D.N.Y. 1970); Teets v. Hawker, 278 F.Supp. 834 (N.D.W.Va.1968). The Court acknowledges that Goldlawr is distinguishable from the instant case, inasmuch as the venue in Goldlawr was impro......
-
Bennett v. Computers Intercontinental, Inc.
...Inc. v. Thomsen, 218 F.2d 514 (4th Cir. 1955); Endicott v. Merdie Boggs & Son, Inc., 489 F.2d 754 (4th Cir., 1974); Teets v. Hawker, 278 F.Supp. 834 (N.D.W.Va. 1968); Kaiser v. Mayo Clinic, 260 F. Supp. 900 (D.Minn.1966). Accordingly, the court will allow plaintiff twenty (20) days from the......