Curry v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware

6 Citing cases

  1. Van Dusen v. Barrack

    376 U.S. 612 (1964)   Cited 4,726 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "change of venue under § 1404 generally should be, with respect to state law, but a change of courtrooms"

    See H. L. Green Co., Inc., v. MacMahon, 312 F.2d 650; Benton v. Vinson, Elkins, Weems Searls, 255 F.2d 299; Headrick v. Atchison, T. S. F. R. Co., 182 F.2d 305. See also, e. g., King Bros. Productions, Inc., v. RKO Teleradio Pictures, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 271; Gomez v. The SS Dorothy, 183 F. Supp. 499; Hargrove v. Louisville N. R. Co., 153 F. Supp. 681; Heaton v. Southern R. Co., 119 F. Supp. 658; Frechoux v. Lykes Bros. S. S. Co., Inc., 118 F. Supp. 234; Greve v. Gibraltar Enterprises, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 410; cf. Curry v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware, 118 F. Supp. 234. But cf. Goranson v. Kloeb, 308 F.2d 655 (transfer granted because, even assuming transferee law applied, the substantive rules would be identical): Felchlin v. American Smelting Refining Co., 136 F. Supp. 577 (see note 18, supra); Curry v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware, supra (transfer denied upon failure of parties to stipulate that transferor statute of limitations would apply).

  2. Barrack v. Van Dusen

    309 F.2d 953 (3d Cir. 1962)   Cited 12 times
    In Barrack v. Van Dusen, 309 F.2d 953 (3rd Cir. 1962), the Court held that a civil action could not be transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

    Additionally, they argue that the phrase "the action" does not include the parties to the action. H.L. Green Co. v. McMahon, ___ F.2d ___ (C.A.2, 1962); Headrick v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry., 182 F.2d 305 (C.A.10, 1950); Gomez v. S.S. Dorothy, 183 F. Supp. 499 (D.Puerto Rico, 1959); Crawford v. S.S. Shirley Lykes, 148 F. Supp. 958 (S.D.N.Y. 1957); Curry v. States Marine Corp. v. Delaware, 118 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1954); Frechoux v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 118 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1953); Greve v. Gibralter Enterprises, 85 F. Supp. 410 (D.N.M. 1949). Six of these seven cases antedate Hoffman v. Blaski, supra.

  3. H.L. Green Company v. MacMahon

    312 F.2d 650 (2d Cir. 1962)   Cited 44 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Following § 1404 transfer of case from New York to Alabama, Alabama court directed to "apply New York law (including any relevant New York choice-of-law rules)."

    The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and other district courts have frequently conditioned orders of transfer upon stipulations by the parties that the statute of limitations applicable in the originating court, the transfer court, be applied in the transferee court. May v. The Steel Navigator, 152 F. Supp. 254 (S.D.N.Y. 1957); Crawford v. The S.S. Shirley Lykes, 148 F. Supp. 958 (S.D.N.Y. 1957); Frechoux v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 118 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1953); Hokanson v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 701, 703 (S.D.N.Y. 1959); I would adopt the procedure utilized in the above cases and would order that the district court so condition the order of transfer here. See also Curry v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware, 118 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1954); Greve v. Gibraltar Enterprises, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 410, 413 (D.N.Mex. 1949); Hargrove v. Louisville N.R.R. Co., 153 F. Supp. 681, 684 (W.D.Ky. 1957); Kaufman, Observations on Transfers Under § 1404(a) of the New Judicial Code, 10 F.R.D. 595, 600-601.

  4. Kaiser v. Mayo Clinic

    260 F. Supp. 900 (D. Minn. 1966)   Cited 17 times

    See, e.g., Hokanson v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 701 (S.D.N.Y. 1959); Frechoux v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc., 118 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1953); Greve v. Gibraltar Enterprises, 85 F. Supp. 410 (D.N.Mex. 1949). On the other hand, where a defendant refused to stipulate that the transferor statute of limitations would continue to apply, transfer was denied in Curry v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware, 118 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1954). The situation in the instant case is somewhat distinct in that here plaintiff moved for transfer.

  5. King Bros. Productions, Inc. v. Rko Teleradio Pictures, Inc.

    208 F. Supp. 271 (S.D.N.Y. 1962)   Cited 7 times

    On the other, some transferor courts, by requiring, as a precautionary condition of transfer, that the statute of limitations of the transferor district be applied when the case is transferred, have implied that a transferee federal court may apply the body of law applicable in the jurisdiction in which it sits. See Hokanson v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 701 (S.D.N.Y. 1959); May v. The Steel Navigator, 152 F. Supp. 254 (E.D.N.Y. 1957); Crawford v. The S.S. Shirley Lykes, 148 F. Supp. 958 (S.D.N.Y. 1957); Curry v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware, 118 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1954); Frechoux v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc., 118 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1953). Other cases have held that the law of the forum in which the transferee court is sitting should be applied in situations where that result was not necessarily dependent on the place where the case was to be heard and determined.

  6. Jozwiak v. Dayton Oil Co.

    200 F. Supp. 300 (S.D.N.Y. 1961)   Cited 6 times

    Analogous action has been taken by this Court in the past. Cf. May v. The Steel Navigator, 152 F.Supp. 254 (S.D.N.Y.1957); Crawford v. S.S. Shirley Lykes, 148 F.Supp. 958 (S.D.N.Y.1957); Curry v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware, 118 F.Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y.1954); see Kaufman, Transfers Under New Judicial Code, 10 F.R.D. 595, 600. But these decisions were before the Blaski case and in situations where there did not appear to be a question whether the action was untimely even under the longer period of limitations applicable in New York.