Court Opinion

ID: 9456590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:57:25.703159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:02.260558
License: Public Domain

HAYS, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the result but differ with the majority’s view that jurisdiction can be asserted only because plaintiff is a resident of New York.
The majority has resurrected a whole battery of cases dating from thirty-five to fifty years ago in order to materialize the ghost of a long-outmoded view of “burden on interstate commerce.” As the majority opinion of the panel said:
“The cases which appellant cites hark back to earlier days and reflect a far less fully developed stage of our national economy. In McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., [355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 2 L.Ed.2d 223 (1957)] the Court said at p. 223:
‘ * * * modern transportation and communication have made it much *29less burdensome for a party sued to defend himself in a State where he engages in economic activity.’* In the Frummer case the New York
Court of Appeals said:
‘We are not unmindful that litigation in a foreign jurisdiction is a burdensome inconvenience for any company. However, it is part of the price which may properly be demanded of those who extensively engage in [interstate] trade. When their activities * * * either directly or through an agent, become as widespread and energetic as the activities in New York conducted by [defendant], they receive considerable benefits from such * * * business and may not be heard to complain about the burdens.’ Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Internat'l, Inc., 19 N.Y.2d at 538, 281 N.Y.S.2d at 45 [227 N.E.2d 851].”
Once the ghost of these ancient cases has been laid there is no difficulty about asserting jurisdiction whether or not plaintiff is a resident, as is amply demonstrated in the majority opinion of the panel.
FEINBERG, Circuit Judge,
joins in this opinion.

 Whether some other forum may be more convenient for trial is not before us. Presumably defendant will be able to move for- transfer to another forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(2) (1964).