Court Opinion

ID: 9449034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:53:25.494169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:39.636521
License: Public Domain

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent from the denial of the petition for rehearing. I adhere to the position which I stated when this case was first decided by the panel that heard argument, pp. 651, 654 (2 Cir., 1962). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and other district courts have frequently conditioned orders of transfer upon stipulations by the parties that the statute of limitations applicable in the originating court, the transferor court, be applied in the transferee court. May v. The Steel Navigator, 152 F.Supp. 254 (S.D.N.Y.1957); Crawford v. The S.S. Shir*655ley Lykes, 148 F.Supp. 958 (S.D.N.Y.1957); Frechoux v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 118 F.Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y.1953); Hokanson v. Helene Curtis Industries, Inc., 177 F.Supp. 701, 703 (S.D.N.Y.1959); I would adopt the procedure utilized in the above cases and would order that the district court so condition the order of transfer here. See also Curry v. States Marine Corp. of Delaware, 118 F.Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y.1954); Greve v. Gibraltar Enterprises, Inc., 85 F.Supp. 410, 413 (D.N.Mex.1949); Hargrove v. Louisville & N. R. R. Co., 153 F.Supp. 681, 684 (W.D.Ky.1957); Kaufman, Observations on Transfers Under § 1404(a) of the New Judicial Code, 10 F.R.D. 595, 600-601.