Frank Daquila v. Melvin H. Schlosberg

Frank DAQUILA Et Al., Appellants, v. Melvin H. SCHLOSBERG Et Al., Appellees

Daquila v. Schlosberg, 253 F.2d 888 (D.C. Cir. 1958)

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided: March 20, 1958
Docket: No. 13933_1
Judges: Prettyman, Miller, Bazelon
Citations: 253 F.2d 888102 U.S. App. D.C. 3661958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3950

Opinion — Bazelon

BAZELON, Circuit Judge.

Our appellants, Mrs. Daquila, who resides in Maryland, and her husband, who resides in Florida, brought this suit in the District of Columbia for injuries suffered from a fall in appellees’ building in Virginia. Appellees reside in the District; of Columbia. Of ten witnesses, four live in Virginia, five in the District of Columbia, and one in Florida. Ap-pellees filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. The District Court granted the motion because “the tort complained of occurred *889 in Virginia and that the defendants maintained their business in Virginia and that the statute of limitations has not run in Virginia and that certain witnesses are in Virginia, and that the law of the State of Virginia would govern in this instance and that this jurisdiction is not the most convenient forum * * This appeal followed.

To sustain the action below, appellees rely solely on Gross v. Owen, 1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 222 , 221 F.2d 94, 96 . There we upheld a dismissal by the District Court which found: “This is a controversy between two citizens of the Free State of Maryland. We have a congested docket here and there is no reason why this case cannot be resolved in Maryland.” But where, as here, the plaintiff elects to sue the defendant in the latter’s district of residence, his choice should be disturbed only upon a strong showing that it is required by the balance of convenience. Since there is no such showing here, we must agree with appellants that the District Court exceeded the limits of its discretion in the matter. Cf. Wiren v. Laws, 1951, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 105 , 194 F.2d 873 .

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Beard v. South Main Bank615 A.2d 203 (D.C. 1992)
Altman v. Central of Georgia Railway Company254 F. Supp. 167 (D.D.C. 1965)
Pitts v. Woodward and Lothrop327 A.2d 816 (D.C. 1974)
Phoenix Canada Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc.78 F.R.D. 445 (D. Del. 1978)
Eleanor Caspar, a Minor by Her Father and Next Friend, George J. Caspar, and George J. Caspar, Individually v. Rita Devine and Richard John De Felice257 F.2d 197 (D.C. Cir. 1958)

Most recent

Beard v. South Main Bank615 A.2d 203 (D.C. 1992)
Phoenix Canada Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc.78 F.R.D. 445 (D. Del. 1978)
Pitts v. Woodward and Lothrop327 A.2d 816 (D.C. 1974)
Altman v. Central of Georgia Railway Company254 F. Supp. 167 (D.D.C. 1965)
Eleanor Caspar, a Minor by Her Father and Next Friend, George J. Caspar, and George J. Caspar, Individually v. Rita Devine and Richard John De Felice257 F.2d 197 (D.C. Cir. 1958)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Wiren v. Laws, Chief Judge of the United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 194 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir. 1951)	35
	Gross v. Owen, 221 F.2d 94 (D.C. Cir. 1955)	49

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list