Legal Document

375 U.S. 71 84 Supreme Court Reporter 185 11 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 137 The Honorable James baron PARSONS, Judge of the District for Northern Illinois, Petitioner,v.The CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY. Number 32. Argued Oct. 23, 1963. Decided Nov. 12, John Naughton, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Charles O'Laughlin, respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 question presented by this case is whether a federal district judge in an action brought under Federal Employers' Liability Act divested all discretion to deny § 1404(a) transfer motion,1 when suit upon same cause action, earlier state court city, was dismissed on ground forum non conveniens. 2 Jack Filbrun commenced personal injuries against respondent railroad Circuit Cook County, Illinois. On respondent's motion did not appeal. Instead, he filed complaint grounded sitting Chicago. pursuant 28 Code KF62 1404(a), requesting that be transferred Western Michigan, Grand Rapids. denied motion, and sought mandamus from Appeals Seventh compel order transfer. rehearing, Appeals, one dissenting, vacated previous judgment refusing mandamus, issued writ directing 307 Reporter, 2nd 924. We granted certiorari, 371 946, 83 506, 9 496, review Appeals. reverse reasons stated below. 3 Under Illinois law court's determination dismiss conveniens requires consideration similar factors—convenience parties witnesses interests justice—to those considered applying 1404(a).2 accordingly reasoned every point necessary passed had already been adjudicated adversely plaintiff court, concluded 'the no but recognize authoritative value ruling, made there plaintiff.' F.2d, at 926. 4 discretionary determinations both courts required, sure, evaluations similar, means identical, objective criteria. However, since material facts underlying application these criteria n each were different several respects, principles res judicata are applicable situation here presented. 5 Thus, example, determining County inconvenient forum, could appropriately consider availability Ludington, where Filbrun's alleged injury occurred. But making his limited alternative trial Rapids, city some 60 miles Ludington. Obviously, convenience would better served Ludington as Similarly, weighing justice legitimately condition docket important factor.3 While congestion problem facing large metropolitan areas, nothing show Chicago identical either nature or quantity system. 6 These considerations more than illustrate many variables which might affect exercise contrasted any given case. Since factual may involved determination, we hold prior dismissal can never serve divest power vested him Congress rule 1404(a). 7 In its original opinion case, found abuse denying do read rehearing having disturbed finding, only determined all—a have now erroneous. Accordingly, reversed, remanded further proceedings. It so ordered. 8 Judgment reversed Court. provides: 'For witnesses, interest justice, civil other division it brought.' addition, required determine plaintiff's selection dictated desire vex harass defendant. Cotton versus Louisville N.R. Co., 14 Ill.2d 144, 174, 152 North Eastern 385, 400. has observed serious exists courts. Ill.2d, 171, N.E.2d, 398.

Classification Label: 8