Court Opinion

ID: 9637328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:03:38.639605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:55.013378
License: Public Domain

FRANK, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
It seems to me not entirely clear that the Supreme Court intended its discussion of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in Williams v. Green Bay & Western Railroad, Jan. 7, 1946, 66 S.Ct. 284, to apply to any cases except those involving internal corporate affairs. For, if not so restricted, then any action, even if brought in the district of the residence of the defendant, will have to be dismissed on a showing that it is vexatious.1 Such a ruling cuts so deeply.into traditional notions about the jurisdiction of the federal courts that I find it difficult to believe that the Supreme Court meant to go so far. I shall, however, assume arguendo that it did. Even on that *887assumption, I concur. For, on that assumption, degree of vexatiousness — arises in each case where the defendant moves to dismiss because of “inconvenience.” On the facts stated by Judge Clark, I think defendant here has not made a sufficient showing of inconvenience to justify dismissal.

 So if the instant case had been brought in a federal district court in the State of Pennsylvania, where defendant is incorporated.