Legal Opinion
J.L. Clark Manufacturing Co. v. Gold Bond Corp.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided October 16, 1985No. Civ. A. 85-2847PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TROUTMAN, Senior District Judge.
Defendant Gold Bond Corporation has moved to dismiss the complaint or to transfer this breach of contract action for improper venue, claiming that it is not a resident of this district and that the claim did not arise here. Since federal jurisdiction is based solely upon diversity of citizenship, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), which allows a case to be brought only in the judicial district where all plaintiffs or all defendants reside or in which the claim arose. Because Gold Bond is a corporation, its residence must be determined…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tefal, S.A. And Royal Chambord, Inc. v. Products International Company, a Partnership Also Known as Picam Products and as Prescott Adams & NolanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Wright v. Columbia UniversityDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Pennwalt Corp. v. Horton Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
- Damon Coats, Inc. v. Munsingwear, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
- Trinity Metals v. Andy International, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Superior Precast, Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1999
- Eason v. Linden Avionics, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1989
- L.C. Baron, Inc. v. H.G. Caspari, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1987