215 F. Supp. 783 | D. Minnesota | 1963
This matter comes before the Court on respondent’s motion to transfer the venue of this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The motion is based on Section 1404(a), 28 U.S.C.A.
rn rm. - , . ,, , LIJ The respondent m the present , .. ... . , , „ case asserts that the interests of the ,. ... . ,, . , . parties could be more justly determined : ,, TT ., , l j¡ m the United States District Court for ,, „ ,. , . .T , „ the Southern District of New York for ,. „ ,, the following reasons:
(a) The alleged contract was wholly executed in New York.
(b) The witnesses are all residents of New York with only a few exceptions, while none are residents of Minnesota.
, N „ , , . records are all kept m ^ew '^°™-
(d) Compulsory appearance is not available in Minnesota,
, (e) The trial should be lengthy and the expense of bringing witnesses and records to Duluth would be great,
_, , ,, , L\belant f^s these contentions by Pomt“? court fh™ld weight to the fact that generally the hbelant has the right to choose its venue ajg0 p0ints 0ut that this dispute involves a contract, whereby the parties became joint-owriers of the vessel BRIDGEHAMPTON. Libelant claims that respondent has fallen into financial
The parties agree that this action was properly brought in this district and also that it could have been commenced in the Southern District of New York. They also agree that transfers of this type are within the discretion of the trial court.
For these reasons the motion to transfer to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is denied.
It is so ordered.
Respondent is allowed an exception.
. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a) provides:
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”
. 28 U.S.O.A. § 1404(a) ; Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 80 S.Ct. 1470, 4 L.Ed.2d 1540; Savage v. Kaiser Motors Corp., (D.C.Minn.) 116 F.Supp. 433.
. Savage v. Kaiser Motors Corp., supra note 2.