U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1960

Henry L. Hayes v. Frank W. Livermont

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 26, 1960 · Edgerton, Miller, Bazelon

279 F.2d 818; 108 U.S. App. D.C. 43; 125 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 486; 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4482 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Alvin Guttag, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Joseph H. Heard, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Leo A. Rosetta, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Goldlawr, Inc. v. Marcus Heiman, Select Operating Corporation and United Booking Office, Inc., and Milton Shubert, William Klein and Sylvia W. Golde (2d Cir. 1961)
Diva Laboratorium Aktienge-Sellschaft v. DeLoney & Co. (District Court, District of Columbia 1965)
BALLY GAMING, INC. v. Kappos (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Bally Gaming, Inc. v. Kappos (District Court, District of Columbia 2011)
Marve A. Dubin v. United States (5th Cir. 1967)
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman (Supreme Court of the United States 1962)
Adolph Hohensee v. News Syndicate, Inc., Etc. (3d Cir. 1961)
Gage v. Somerset County (District Court, District of Columbia 2019)
Gage v. State of New Jersey (District Court, District of Columbia 2019)
Gage v. Somerset Cnty. (D.C. Cir. 2019)
Gage v. Somerset County (District Court, District of Columbia 2018)
Ingersoll-Rand Company v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1985)
Cardwell v. Investor's Analysis, Inc. (District Court, District of Columbia 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court held that the term “adverse parties residing in a plurality of districts”, in 35 U.S.C. § 146, which concerns review of Patent Office decisions, is “not limited to plurality of defendants but may involve one plaintiff and one defendant if each resides in a separate district.” This was error. Coe v. Hobart Mfg. Co., 70 App.D.C. 2, 102 F.2d 270. Cf. Chris Laganas Shoe Co. v. Watson, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 221 F.2d 881. Since appellant resides in Michigan and was not served with process in the District of Columbia, this suit against him cannot be maintained here. The order denying his motion to dismiss is vacated.

But the District Court has authority to transfer the case to a district “in which it could have been brought”. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The case is therefore remanded to enable the District Court to consider whether transfer would be in the interest of justice. As the late Judge Parker said for the Fourth Circuit, “transfer is in accord with modem standards of procedure, the purpose of which is to get away from time-consuming and justice-defeating technicalities and secure an adjudication of the rights of the parties by as direct and as expeditious a route as possible.” Internatio-Rotterdam, Inc. v. Thomsen, 218 F.2d 514, 517. Amerio Contact Plate Freezers, Inc. v. Knowles, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 81, 274 F.2d 590.

In respect to transfer, Judge Bazelon concurs only in the result and only because of the authority of the Amerio case.

Vacated and remanded.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.