Summary

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg Van Dusen v. Barrack — Opinion of the Court

The possibilities thus suggested by the facts of the present case amply demonstrate that the limiting phrase of § 1404 (a) should be construed to prevent parties who are opposed to a change of venue from defeating a transfer which, but for their own deliberate acts or omissions, would be proper, convenient and just. The power to defeat a transfer to the convenient federal forum should derive from rights and privileges conferred by federal law and not from the deliberate conduct of a party favoring trial in an inconvenient forum.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg Van Dusen v. Barrack — Opinion of the Court

The plaintiffs state that the vast majority of American jurisdictions permit only locally qualified foreign representatives because safeguards are needed 'to protect local citizens who are potential defendants from suits by more than one fiduciary purporting to represent the same decedent and protect all persons from losses caused by the actions of irresponsible out-of-state fiduciaries.' These considerations do not, however, support the plaintiffs' interpretation of Rule 17 (b) .
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Arthur Goldberg Arthur Goldberg Van Dusen v. Barrack — Opinion of the Court

If this assumption is valid, the plaintiffs argue, transfer is necessarily precluded-regardless of convenience and other considerations-as against the 'interest of justice' in dealing with plaintiffs who have either exercised the venue privilege conferred by federal statutes, or had their cases removed from state into federal court.
If conflict of laws rules are laid aside, it is clear that Massachusetts (the State of the transferee court) and Pennsylvania (the State of the transferor court) have significantly different laws concerning recovery for wrongful death.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature