Torres v. Continental Bus System, Inc., Civ. A. No. 1486
| Decision Date | 26 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | 1488,1489.,Civ. A. No. 1486 |
| Citation | 204 F. Supp. 347 |
| Parties | Benito TORRES, Jr. v. CONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM, INC. Elidia Alvarado HINOJOSA v. CONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM, INC. Dolores G. GUTIERREZ v. CONTINENTAL BUS SYSTEM, INC. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Johnson, Hester, Jenkins, & Toscano, Darrell B. Hester, Harlingen, Tex., for plaintiff Benito Torres, Jr.
Gene F. McCullough, Harlingen, Tex., for plaintiffs Elidia Alvarado Hinojosa and Dolores G. Gutierrez.
Cunningham, Yznaga & Duncan, Hector Yznaga, Brownsville, Tex., for defendant.
In the above three cases, the Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss because of improper venue.
The facts involved are all the same. The Defendant is the same, and the identical motion by the Defendant is made in each case.
These three suits have arisen out of an accident that happened on the 30th day of January, 1962, when an automobile occupied by some soldiers had a collision with a bus belonging to the Defendant. The accident happened on U. S. Highway 59, in the Galveston Division of this Court. Three of the soldiers in the automobile were killed and one was severely injured. Two of the Plaintiffs in the above cases are suing for damages for their deaths, and the injured soldier is suing for his injuries.
The jurisdiction of this Court is admitted by all parties and is not in question.
The Defendant, Continental Bus System, Inc., is a Tennessee corporation with a permit to do business in Texas, and does business in the Southern District of Texas, but not in the Brownsville Division thereof. The Plaintiffs are all residents of the Southern District of Texas, and of the Brownsville Division thereof where these suits are now pending.
These suits have been brought, and the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under the provisions of 28 U.S. C.A. § 1391(a), since each suit is a civil action based on diversity of citizenship, involving an amount in excess of $10,000.00, and is brought in the District where the Plaintiffs reside.
The Defendant, in its motion to dismiss on account of improper venue, maintains that because of the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(c), which reads as follows:
"A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes." —
it is a resident of the Southern District of Texas, since it is doing business in such judicial district.
Since for venue purposes the Defendant is a resident of the Southern District of Texas, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1393(a), which reads as follows:
"Except as otherwise provided, any civil action, not of a local nature, against a single defendant in a district containing more than one division must be brought in the division where he resides." —
it should have been sued in a division where it does business, because that is the division of its residence, because where it resides is where it does business.
The facts are uncontroverted that the Defendant does business in the Houston, Galveston, Victoria and Corpus Christi Divisions of this Court, but does not do business in the Brownsville Division thereof.
The Defendant maintains that since it has been made a resident, for venue purposes, of the Southern District of Texas by the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(c), it can invoke the provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1393(a) and claim its privilege to be sued in the division where it resides or does business. Both Plaintiffs and Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weiss v. York Hosp.
...(N.D.Ohio 1924); see generally 1 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice p 0.143, at 1466 (2d ed. 1984); see also Torres v. Continental Bus System, Inc., 204 F.Supp. 347 (S.D.Tex.1962) (statute applies to a corporate defendant that is a resident of the division). Because we hold that section 139......
-
Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc.
...N.D.Ind.1958, 163 F.Supp. 218. Cf. Joscar Co. v. Consolidated Sun Ray, Inc., E.D.N.Y.1963, 212 F.Supp. 634; Torres v. Continental Bus System, Inc., S.D.Tex.1962, 204 F.Supp. 347; Ruth v. Eagle-Picher Co., 10 Cir.1955, 225 F.2d 572.7 The cases holding that a corporation is licensed to do bus......
-
Burbank Intern. Ltd. v. GULF CON. INTERN. INC.
...F.Supp. 209 (S.D.N.Y. 1960); Jacobson v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 163 F.Supp. 218 (N.D.Ind.1958); Cf. Torres v. Continental Bus System, Inc., 204 F.Supp. 347 (S.D.Tex.1962). The wealth of authority on both sides of the question compels the conclusion that the statute is ambiguous, an......
-
Medicenters of Amer., Inc. v. T and V Realty & Equip. Corp.
...where venue within the district4 is, in the first instance premised solely on the defendant's residence. Cf. Torres v. Continental Bus System, Inc., 204 F. Supp. 347 (S.D.Tex.1962). The suggestion is that when venue within the district can be based on something other than the defendant's re......