Document: 369 U.S. 463 82 S.Ct. 913 8 L.Ed.2d 39 GOLDLAWR, INC., Petitioner,v.Marcus HEIMAN et al. No. 101. Argued March 19, 1962. Decided April 30, Edwin P. Rome, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioner. C. Russell Phillips, respondents Select Operating Corporation and United Booking Office, Inc. Aaron Lipper, New York City, Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of York, Executor Estate Marcus Heiman, Deceased, respondent Heiman. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 This private antitrust action treble damages other relief under §§ 2 Sherman Act1 § 4 Clayton Act2 was brought by petitioner against a number defendants in States District Court Eastern Pennsylvania. After hearings on motion to dismiss grounds improper venue lack personal jurisdiction over defendants, Pennsylvania agreed that improperly laid as two corporate defendants3 because they were neither inhabitants of, 'found' nor transacting business Pennsylvania, these being alternative prerequisites 12 Act.4 That court refused however, choosing instead use its authority 28 U.S.C. 1406(a), U.S.C.A. transfer it Southern where, could be found transacted business, proper obtained them service process 12. These then appeared moved have case dismissed ground had not and, lacking such jurisdiction, power 1406(a) action.5 The granted this asserted,6 Appeals Second Circuit, with Judge Hincks dissenting, affirmed same ground.7 Because decision presented conflict uniform course decisions previously made question Courts Appeal,8 we certiorari.9 Section which transferred case, provides: 3 'The district is filed laying wrong division or shall dismiss, if interest justice, any been brought.' Nothing language indicates operation section intended limited actions transferring has defendants. And cannot agree restrictive interpretation can supported legislative history—either relied upon Appeals10 our attention. problem gave rise enactment avoiding injustice often resulted plaintiffs from dismissal their merely an erroneous guess regard existence some elusive fact kind provisions turn. Indeed, itself typical example sought avoided, here would plaintiff's losing substantial part cause statute limitations mistake thinking corporations 'transact * business' Pennsylvania.11 history both originally enacted12 amended 1949,13 show congressional purpose provide effective remedy possible avoid precisely sort injustice. 5 amply broad enough authorize cases, however plaintiff may filing his venue, whether not. thus accord general prompted many procedural changes past few years—that removing whatever obstacles impede expeditious orderly adjudication cases controversies merits. When lawsuit filed, shows desire begin thereby toll statutes limitation otherwise apply. diligence insure. If reason uncertainties made, Congress, recognized 'the justice' require complaint but rather order penalized what late Parker aptly characterized 'time-consuming justice-defeating technicalities.'14 It at least partially frustrate enlightened objective import ambiguities into do exist Congress used achieve reform desired. 6 erred upholding Court's dismissing judgment accordingly reversed. 7 Reversed. FRANKFURTER took no case. 9 WHITE consideration 10 HARLAN, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. 11 notion deal personam way possibly affect defendant's substantive rights without first acquiring him familiar one federal jurisprudence. No suggests aware might so when enacted statute. 'interest speaks emphasizes support construction assuredly one-way street. incongruous consider, holding seem imply, where are commenced, while neglecting comparable alleviative measures who selects obtained.* In circumstances I think matter better left further preferably after Judicial Conference expressed views subject. Cf. Miner v. Atlass, 363 641, 650—652, 80 1300, 1307, 1462. Meanwhile, substantially reasons elaborated Moore, 288 F.2d 579, affirm Appeals. 26 Stat. 209, amended, 15 2, 2. 38 731, 15, 15. also individual relevant issue properly before us. See note 6, infra. 736, 22, 22. section, deals provides served corporation 'is inhabitant, wherever found.' improper. Only these, court. Heiman's second entirely independent ground. Heiman did seek certiorari ground, writ therefore Goldlawr Shubert, D.C., 175 F.Supp. 793. 579. Internatio-Rotterdam, Inc., Thomsen, Cir., 218 514; Orion Shipping & Trading States, 247 755; Amerio Contact Plate Freezers, Knowles, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 274 590; Hayes Livermont, 108 43, 279 818. 368 810, 33, 19. Senate Report 303, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., U.S.Code Cong.Service 1940, p. 1253, discussed below 583. As illustrating difficulties arise determining transact see Polizzi Cowles Magazines, 345 663, 73 900, 97 L.Ed. 1331; International Shoe Washington, 326 310, 66 154, 90 95. 62 937. 13 63 14 514, 517. ordinary diversity suit, example, bring suit judicial he resides. 1391(a), 1391(a). But unable get defendant territory defined Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 4(f), U.S.C.A., will dismissed. Robertson Railroad Labor Board, 268 619, 45 621, 69 1119; cf. Mississippi Publishing Corp. Murphree, 438, 442—443, 242, 245, 185. Since 'a district,' inapplicable.

Category: 8