![]() ![]() Because of the importance of the question in the effective administration of federal law, we granted certiorari. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for mandamus on the ground that it was not an appropriate remedy. Petitioner then sought a writ of mandamus from the Court of Appeals to compel the respondent to vacate and set aside the order of severance and transfer. § 1406(a), ordered the action as to Cravey severed, and transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, where Cravey resided. Not properly laid and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The respondent judge held that the court had jurisdiction of the action and of the Commissioner, under Rule 4(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, service of process having been had on him in the Northern District of Florida. In furtherance of its theory that the Commissioner was "found" in the district, petitioner alleged overt acts committed by the Commissioner, as well as his codefendants, in the district where the suit was filed. ![]() ,"Īnd that the Commissioner therefore was "found," and had "agents," in the district within the meaning of the statute. that a conspiracy is a partnership, and that co-conspirators are each other's agents. "was a member of a conspiracy whose other members were residing and carrying on the illegal business of the conspiracy in the Southern District of Florida. § 15, allows suit "in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent." It is admitted that Commissioner Cravey was not a resident of the Southern District of Florida, but petitioner contends that the Commissioner The applicable venue statute for private treble damage actions brought under the antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. The Georgia insurance commissioner, Cravey, was personally served in the Northern District of Florida, and, without entering his appearance or waiving venue, moved to quash the summons and return of service and dismiss him from the action for improper venue. The complaint named as defendants the insurance commissioners of Georgia and Florida, one other individual, and four insurance companies residing and transacting business in the Southern District of Florida. This case arises out of a treble damage action brought by petitioner, an Illinois insurance corporation, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging a conspiracy to injure petitioner's business, in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The question here is whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to vacate a severance and transfer order entered by a district judge, on the ground of improper venue, under 28 U.S.C. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court. 384.ĬERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS (c) Petitioner has not met the burden of showing that its right to issuance of the writ is "clear and indisputable." P. (b) Use of the writ of mandamus was not appropriate in this case to prevent alleged inconvenience and hardship occasioned by an appeal's being delayed until after final judgment. (a) The supplementary review power conferred on federal courts by the All Writs Act is meant to be used only in exceptional cases where there is a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power, and this is not such a case. § 1406(a) on the ground of improper venue. In the circumstances of this case, mandamus against a federal district judge was not an appropriate remedy to vacate a severance and transfer order entered by him under 28 U.S.C.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |