This document is a court case from 1969 regarding a petition for mandamus seeking review of an order refusing to transfer a case to another district under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). The case appears to be an uncomplicated design patent case, and the transfer is sought for witness convenience. The court acknowledges the petitioner makes a respectable showing for transfer. However, the court denies the petition for mandamus, finding this is not an exceptional case warranting extraordinary relief. The court notes the existence of interlocutory appeal procedures and that if the case reaches the court through ordinary process, it could consider reimbursing the petitioner for witness expenses even if the petitioner does not ultimately prevail on the merits.
This document is a court case from 1969 regarding a petition for mandamus seeking review of an order refusing to transfer a case to another district under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). The case appears to be an uncomplicated design patent case, and the transfer is sought for witness convenience. The court acknowledges the petitioner makes a respectable showing for transfer. However, the court denies the petition for mandamus, finding this is not an exceptional case warranting extraordinary relief. The court notes the existence of interlocutory appeal procedures and that if the case reaches the court through ordinary process, it could consider reimbursing the petitioner for witness expenses even if the petitioner does not ultimately prevail on the merits.
This document is a court case from 1969 regarding a petition for mandamus seeking review of an order refusing to transfer a case to another district under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). The case appears to be an uncomplicated design patent case, and the transfer is sought for witness convenience. The court acknowledges the petitioner makes a respectable showing for transfer. However, the court denies the petition for mandamus, finding this is not an exceptional case warranting extraordinary relief. The court notes the existence of interlocutory appeal procedures and that if the case reaches the court through ordinary process, it could consider reimbursing the petitioner for witness expenses even if the petitioner does not ultimately prevail on the merits.
Robert D. Power, Boston, Mass., with whom Stanton T. Lawrence, Jr.,
Charles E. McKenney, New York City, Peabody & Arnold, Boston, Mass., and Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Taylor & Adams, New York City, were on petition, for petitioner. Melvin R. Jenney, Boston, Mass., with whom Kenway, Jenney & Hildreth, Boston, Mass., was on brief, for American Biltrite Rubber Co., Inc., respondent. Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, McENTEE and COFFIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for mandamus by which petitioner seeks review of an order
refusing a transfer to another district under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). The action appears to be an uncomplicated design patent case; the transfer is sought for the convenience of witnesses.
Petitioner makes a respectable showing. Nonetheless, we do not regard this an
exceptional case, warranting what is customarily characterized as extraordinary relief. The existence of interlocutory appeal procedure under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) of itself emphasizes the heavy burden on one who seeks mandamus on matters that come within the possible ambit of that statute.
The petition is denied. We do not determine the merits of petitioner's claim. If
it does reach us by ordinary process it will be open, if we find the district court committed error in refusing transfer, to consider compensation by way of reimbursement for the expense of bringing essential witnesses to Boston even though, on the ultimate issues, defendant does not prevail.
Robert E. Miller v. Carl Weller, Emily I. Weller, Everett Weller, Ray Weller, Mamie Weller, Norman E. Ritter and Marjorie Hester, Formerly Trading as Weller Manufacturing Co., 286 F.2d 172, 3rd Cir. (1961)
Julius E. Foster v. Magnetic Heating Corporation, Thermatool Corporation, David G. Osterer, Herman C. Morris, American MacHine & Foundry Company, 410 F.2d 12, 2d Cir. (1969)
Darren Morris v. Local 819, International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Colum Flaherty, Trustee of Local 819, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 169 F.3d 782, 2d Cir. (1999)
Intercontinental Transportation Co., Inc., Owner of The S.S. Natalie v. States Marine Lines, Inc., and Arrow Steamship Co., Inc., 297 F.2d 249, 2d Cir. (1961)
United States of America and Robert Gray, Special Agent, Internal Revenue Service v. Lester H. Salter, and Local 57, International Union of Operating Engineers, Intervenor, 421 F.2d 1393, 1st Cir. (1970)