Case Name: SCRIPTOMATIC, INC., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Respondent, and SPEEDADDRESS, INC., et al., Respondents and Real Parties in Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1976-08-16
Citations: 545 F.2d 1156
Docket Number: No. 75-3415
Parties: SCRIPTOMATIC, INC., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Respondent, and SPEEDADDRESS, INC., et al., Respondents and Real Parties in Interest.
Judges: Before CHAMBERS, HUFSTEDLER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 545
Pages: 1156–1157

Head Matter:
SCRIPTOMATIC, INC., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Respondent, and SPEEDADDRESS, INC., et al., Respondents and Real Parties in Interest.
No. 75-3415.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Aug. 16, 1976.
John W. Logan, Jr. (argued), Abington, Pa., for petitioner.
Charles E. Steffey (argued), Minneapolis, Minn., for real party in interest (Speedaddress, Inc.).
Before CHAMBERS, HUFSTEDLER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This case is controlled by Commercial Lighting Products, Inc. v. United States District Court (9th Cir. 1976), 537 F.2d 1078.
The contacts with the state to which the district court transferred the action were no more substantial than those in Commercial Lighting Products, Inc., supra. Here, only one of the California residents ever visited Minnesota. Aside from letters and telephone calls, the remaining connection is an averment in the complaint, as yet unsubstantiated, that a conspiracy existed to restrain trade in both states.
We vacate the transfer order and direct that the case proceed in the Central District of California.