Legal Opinion

Berger v. Grace Line, Inc.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 4, 1972No. Civ. A. 68-2495PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HAROLD K. WOOD, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a seaman proceeding pro se, has moved for a change of venue to the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. In support of his motion he states that he resides in New York and that all witnesses and records are located in New York. For reasons hereinafter stated, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.

There is some question as to whether a plaintiff who voluntarily chooses his forum may move for a change of venue under § 1404. See e. g. Trader v. Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Jarka Corp. of Phila., 190 F.Supp. 282…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Teodore Dorotee Autera v. Manuel Dudley Robinson, Anthony C. Autera v. Manuel Dudley RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1969
  2. Kelly v. GreerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1966
  3. Trader v. Pope & Talbot, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1961

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Ass'n for Retarded Children v. PennsylvaniaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1972
  2. Morris v. GasperoDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
  3. Read v. BakerDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1977
  4. Read v. BakerDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 1977
  5. Boyd v. Larco-Industrial Painting CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1973

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API