(S.D.N.Y. 1975); Kest v. New York Central R.R., 116 F. Supp. 615, 616 (W.D.N.Y. 1953). To the contrary, by transferring this case to Connecticut, a significant cost savings will be realized by virtue of the fact that the parties, witnesses, and records are all located in that judicial district. Further, the Court has learned that the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has available trial dates as early as June and July of this year.
Regarding the law of the case, such orders as have been made prior to transfer are a part of the record and remain in effect. See Hayman Cash Register Co. v. Sarokin, 669 F.2d 162, 168 (3d Cir. 1982); see also International Union v. Donovan, 244 U.S. App. D.C. 141, 756 F.2d 162, 165 nn. 16, 17 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (However, courts of coordinate jurisdiction may not bind each other.). The Court may not consider the other pending motions presently before it. In transferring this case pursuant to section 1404(a), the Court loses jurisdiction. In re Sosa, 229 U.S. App. D.C. 447, 712 F.2d 1479, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
C. Venue Is Proper In Connecticut
An action may only be transferred to a district in which the action might have been commenced originally. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (1982); Relf v. Gasch, 167 U.S. App. D.C. 238, 511 F.2d 804, 806-07 (D.C. Cir. 1975). As noted supra slip op. at 3, plaintiff bases his action, inter alia, on federal question jurisdiction. Complaint para. 3; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982); 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (1982). Thus this action may be brought in the district where all of the defendants reside or in which the claim arose. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (1982), see also 18 U.S.C. 1965(a) (1982). As both defendants, not to mention plaintiff, reside in Connecticut, and given that at least ". . . a substantial portion of the acts or omissions giving rise to the action occurred . . ." in Connecticut, venue is placed properly in the District of Connecticut. Lamont v. Haig, 192 U.S. App. D.C. 8, 590 F.2d 1124, 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
Last, plaintiff argues disingenuously that our circuit court ordered that the trial of this case be conducted in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Martin-Trigona v. Smith, 229 U.S. App. D.C. 389, 712 F.2d 1421 (D.C. Cir. 1983). The circuit court ruled simply that plaintiff receive a trial on the merits before a United States District Court, not one necessarily in the District of Columbia. Id. at 1424-27. The Court's ruling today in no way contravenes that holding.
With the dismissal of Mr. Shrinsky, the circumstances of this case present one of the rare situations where plaintiff's choice of venue must be disturbed. Consideration of the convenience to the litigants and witnesses and the interests of justice compel the Court to transfer this case to the District of Connecticut. An order is attached.
Upon consideration of defendants' motion for change of venue, plaintiff's opposition thereto, defendants' reply, the entire record herein, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is by the Court this 19th day of March 1987,
ORDERED that defendants' motion is granted; it is further
ORDERED that this case is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia stay execution of this order pending notice of any appeal or for 30 days from the date of this order, whichever may occur first. If the parties indicate to the Court that no appeal from this order will be sought, then the Clerk of the Court shall execute this order forthwith.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.