Frank Daquila v. Melvin H. Schlosberg, 253 F.2d 888 (D.C. Cir. 1958). · Go Syfert
Search
Frank Daquila v. Melvin H. Schlosberg, 253 F.2d 888 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Beard v. South Main Bank, 615 A.2d 203 (D.C. 1992)
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958 1992 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 889 Disturbing plaintiff's choice of forum in defendant's residence3 citing cases“should be disturbed only upon a strong showing that dismissal is required by the balance of convenience.”1 citing court quotes it
  • Beard v. South Main Bank, 615 A.2d 203 (D.C. 1992).published 4 cites
    In particular, when the plaintiff elects to file suit in the defendant's place of residence, as SMB has done here, the plaintiff's choice of forum "should be disturbed only upon a strong showing that [dismissal] is required by the balance…
  • Phoenix Canada Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 78 F.R.D. 445 (D. Del. 1978).published
    The doctrine “involves the dismissal of a case because the forum chosen by the plaintiff is so completely inappropriate and inconvenient that it is better to stop the litigation in the place where brought and let it start all over again so…
  • Altman v. Cent. of Georgia Ry. Co., 254 F. Supp. 167 (D.D.C. 1965).published
    Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 , 67 S.Ct. 839, 843 , 91 L.Ed. 1055, 1062 (1947); North Branch Products, Inc. v. Fisher, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 182 , 184, 284 F.2d 611, 613 (1960), cert. denied 365 U.S. 827 , 81 S.Ct. 713 , 5 L.Ed.2d…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank DAQUILA Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Melvin H. SCHLOSBERG Et Al., Appellees
13933_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Mar 20, 1958.
Published opinion
253 F.2d 888
1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 3950
Mr. John T. Casey, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. David M. Klinedinst, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants., Mr. William H. Clarke, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Richard W. Galiher and William E. Stewart, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Prettyman, Miller, Bazelon.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
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.