TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Facen v. Royal Rotterdam Lloyd S. S. Co.

FACEN v. ROYAL ROTTERDAM LLOYD S. S. CO. BARTON v. ROYAL ROTTERDAM LLOYD S. S. CO.

Facen v. Royal Rotterdam Lloyd S. S. Co., 12 F.R.D. 443 (S.D.N.Y. 1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
May 12, 1952
Judges
Weinfeld
Citations
12 F.R.D. 443

Opinion of the Court — Weinfeld

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Plaintiff in an action pending in the Eastern District of New York moves in this Court to consolidate her action with one pending in this district. There are different plaintiffs in each action, and while one defendant is common to both, an additional defendant is named only in the Eastern District suit. The basis of the motion is that the claim of each plaintiff arises out of one accident and involves the identical state of facts.

Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C., permits consolidation of actions involving common questions of law or fact only where they “are pending before the court”. But the Court is without authority to consolidate an action pending in another district with one pending here. 1 Implicit in the plaintiff’s motion is the removal to this district of her action pending in the Eastern District. A case may be removed from one district to another upon the ground of forum non conveniens. 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). But the application must be made in the district in which the case is pending and not in the district to which it is to be removed.

The cases cited by the moving party are inapplicable since in each instance the consolidation was of actions pending in the same district.

Motion denied.

Settle order on notice.

. Schwartz v. Kaufman, D.C., 46 F.Supp. 318 ; 5 Moore’s Federal Practice, Second Edition, ¶42.02, footnote 11.

How later courts describe this case

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

1961: 11962: 11984: 11989: 21991: 11996: 12022: 119612026peak 1989 · 2

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Schwartz v. Kaufman, 46 F. Supp. 318 (E.D.N.Y. 1940) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list