Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

RESEARCH AUTOMATION v. SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT INTERNATIONAL (November 23, 2010)

Schrader-Bridgeport International (SRI) contracted with Research Automation to custom build a high-pressure cleaning machine. A dispute arose between the parties and each filed suit against the other -- Research in Illinois and SRI in Virginia. Research asked the Illinois federal court to enjoin SRI from proceeding in Virginia, and SRI asked the Illinois federal court to transfer its case to Virginia under § 1404(a). Judge Gottschall (N.D. Ill.) denied Research's request and granted SRI's. Research appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Sykes, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court briefly addressed its appellate jurisdiction because the transfer decision would generally not be appealable as an interlocutory order. However, since the denial of the injunction is appealable, the Court exercised pendant appellate jurisdiction over the “inextricably intertwined” transfer order. On the merits, the Court identified the relevant factors the district court should consider in exercising its discretion to transfer under § 1404 (a): the availability and access to witnesses and other resources, the location of the events, docket congestion, time to trial, each court's familiarity with the law, and the local community's interest in the matter. Here, the district court considered the appropriate factors and concluded that Virginia was the more appropriate forum. The court relied principally on Virginia's connection to the events -- where the contract was negotiated and where it was to be performed. The Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its finding. The Court rejected Research's reliance on a rigid "first-to-file" rule. The Seventh Circuit does not adhere to such a rigid rule, particularly where the cases are mirror images. In fact, it is the suit that seeks coercive (here SRI), rather than declaratory, relief that is generally favored in that situation, regardless of who filed first. Although the Court conceded that the Eleventh and Federal Circuits apply a more rigid rule, most other circuits are in accord with the Seventh Circuit. The order of filing should simply be one factor considered as part of the § 1404 (a) analysis.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ANDERSON v. AON CORP. (July 26, 2010)

Robert Anderson sold his California insurance brokerage firm to Aon Corporation in 1997. He received approximately 95,000 shares of Aon stock when it was trading around $69 per share. Within five years, its share price had fallen to approximately $14. Anderson brought suit in state court in California, his state of residency, and alleged only violations of California securities law. He alleged that the fall in share price was due to the company’s mismanagement, that the mismanagement was fraudulently concealed until 2002, and that he would have sold the shares earlier absent the concealment. Aon removed on diversity grounds. Anderson shortly thereafter dismissed without prejudice, anticipating that the federal court was going to transfer the case to Illinois under § 1404(a). He refiled, again in California state court, and added two California citizen defendants (to prevent diversity). Curiously, this time he included a federal claim (RICO) in his complaint. Aon removed on federal question grounds and also asserted that the additional defendants were fraudulently joined. Anderson dismissed his federal claim and asked that the case be remanded. Instead, the California district court transferred the case to Illinois. Judge Manning (N.D. Ill.) applied Illinois law and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. Anderson appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Williams and Tinder reversed and remanded. The Court first addressed its appellate jurisdiction, since one of Anderson's arguments was that the California federal court should have remanded to state court, instead of transferring, once he dismissed his RICO claim. The Court recognized that some circuits have held that appellate review in cases such as this is split between the transferor court's circuit and the transferee court's circuit -- but it concluded otherwise. A § 1404(a) transfer is not separately reviewable. The only review comes after a final decision when all rulings of the Illinois court (even if to apply law of the case) are reviewed. On the merits of the transfer decision, the Court concluded that the lower court acted appropriately. There was jurisdiction when the suit was filed because of the federal claim and there was supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim under § 1367(a). Once the federal claim was dismissed, the district court had discretion to either remand or to assert its supplemental jurisdiction over the state court claims until resolution. The Court cited Andersen's legal maneuvering as one reason the court prudently kept (and transferred) the case. On the substantive merits of the claim, however, the Court found error. The transfer of the case should not affect the applicable law. Here, the court should have applied the California choice-of-law rules to determine which state's substantive law applied. The California choice-of-law rule has three parts: first, it asks whether the different states' laws are different; second (if they are different), it examines each states' interest to decide whether a true conflict exists; and third (if there is a true conflict), it applies the law of the state whose interests would be most impaired by the adoption of the other state's law. The Court noted that the substantive law at issue here was the viability of a "holder action." A holder action is a private action for damages by an investor who claims that he continued to hold the stock, when he would otherwise have sold, because of the deceit of the defendant. The Supreme Court, in Blue Chip Stamps, concluded that holder actions are not viable under federal securities laws. However, they are viable under California securities laws. The Illinois Supreme Court has not spoken, although Illinois generally follows federal law in this area. The Court therefore concluded that there was a true conflict under the choice of law rules in the California. It also concluded that the third prong of the test favored California in that California has affirmatively accepted the viability of a holder action and Illinois has not spoken on the issue. Anderson should thus be allowed to proceed with the action. The Court concluded by noting a number of significant obstacles in Anderson's path but left them to be addressed, in the first instance, by the district court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link