If venue is deemed proper in Massachusetts, Phlo seeks transfer of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.The balancing analysis remains similar, however. Section 1404(a) provides the District Court with somewhat greater discretion than it had in the traditional forum non conveniens analysis.
PHLO NEX AFTERSHAVE COLOGNE TRIAL
Courts essentially look to the forum non conveniens factors to make this decision, and examine the relative convenience to each of the parties, the "relative ease of access to sources of proof," the "availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling" witnesses, and the relative availability of documentary and tangible evidence, as well as the public interest in the administration of justice, including trial efficiency. § 1404(a), this Court has discretion to transfer a matter to another District Court by virtue of the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Finally, Phlo attempts to persuade this Court to transfer the case to the Southern District on the grounds that the burdens of litigating here far outweigh any benefits.Thus, the fact that Veryfine filed its suit first ordinarily would preclude a transfer of venue to the court of the second filing. 1067 (1947) for the proposition that a plaintiff should not be deprived of the advantages of its own choice of jurisdiction except upon a clear showing of facts which either "(1) establish such oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant as to be out of all proportion to plaintiffs convenience, which may be shown to be slight or nonexistent, or (2) make trial in the chosen forum inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own administrative or legal problems." 94 F.3d at 720. In Nowak, the First Circuit quoted the Supreme Court's decision in Koster v. that considerations of convenience and judicial efficiency strongly favor litigating the claim in the alternative forum"). 1996) (there is a "strong presumption in favor of a plaintiff's forum choice, the defendant must bear the burden of proving. "Where identical actions are proceeding concurrently in two federal courts, entailing duplicative litigation and a waste of judicial resources, the first filed action is generally preferred in a choice-of-venue decision." Cianbro Corp.The true underlying claim, of course, was patent infringement, and in cases such as this the circumstances demonstrate that the winner of the race to the courthouse should not enjoy the presumption of preferable venue. The first-filed suit is particularly suspect where a party, as in Davox, has brought a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement. The pattern that emerges from the cases indicates that transfer may be appropriate where a party has won the race to the courthouse by misleading his opponent into staying his hand in anticipation of negotiation or by reacting to notice of imminent filing by literally sprinting to the courthouse the same day. 1978) ("When the declaratory judgment action has been triggered by a notice letter, this equitable consideration may be a factor in the decision to allow the later filed action to proceed to judgment in the plaintiffs' chosen forum."). In reaching this conclusion, Judge Wolf wrote, "Davox should not be permitted to take advantage of the fact that DSI responsibly deferred filing potentially protracted and expensive litigation and, indeed, was perhaps misled into believing it would not be prejudiced by doing so by Davox's responses to its letters." Id. "Rather than responding to the invitation to enter into discussions to resolve the matter, as Davox represented it would, Davox filed this action in an evident effort to obtain a forum more convenient to it than the Western District of Washington." Id. 1993) (Wolf, J.), Judge Wolf declined to exercise jurisdiction over Davox's patent infringement suit in favor of a duplicative suit in the Western District of Washington. These circumstances are usually found in situations in which one party has won a race to the courthouse by jumping the gun and filing a declaratory judgment action in a forum that has little relation to the dispute. Courts have recognized that there may be an exception to the "first filed" rule when there are "special circumstances" justifying a transfer.
0 kommentar(er)
