Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman

PETITIONER: Goldlawr, Inc.
LOCATION: South Carolina State House

DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CITATION: 369 US 463 (1962)
ARGUED: Mar 19, 1962
DECIDED: Apr 30, 1962

Facts of the case


Media for Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 19, 1962 in Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman

Earl Warren:

-- and 1, GoldLawr, Incorporated, Petitioner, versus Marcus Heiman et al.

Mr. Rome.

You may proceed with your argument.

Edwin P. Rome:

In submission to Your Honors, this Honorable Court has granted a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

That court was composed of Judges Hincks, Waterman and Moore.

Judge Moore wrote the decision below for the majority of the Circuit Court with Judge Hincks writing a dissenting opinion.

The question for review if Your Honors please is the following.

Did the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, a private antitrust suit have power to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1406 (a) for improper venue without having obtained personal jurisdiction over the transferred defendants.

The facts of the case are simple and are not in dispute.

I would undertake to state them briefly.

GoldLawr Incorporated is a Pennsylvania corporation which sued a number of corporate and individual defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the antitrust laws charging that there had been damaged suffered by it as the result of the nationwide monopolization and conspiracy on the part of the defendants, unreasonably to restraints trade in the legitimate theatre industry.

Trouble damages and injunctive relief were sought by the plaintiff corporation.

The action was instituted in the United States District Court for the Easter District Court of Pennsylvania on October 17, 1956 within one year from the date of entry of a consent decree in the Government's antitrust action against the Shubert's in connection with the legitimate theatre industry.

The purpose of that institution within that one year was of course to secure the benefits of the tolling statute under Section 5 (b) of the Clayton Act.

Service on all of the defendants was attempted in Philadelphia and thereafter, service was attempted also on select operating corporation and the United Booking Office Incorporated, two of the corporate respondents here by alias summons issued out of the Southern District of New York.

Motions were filed to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue and also to quash the return of service.

These were filed in November of 1956.

The matter came on for argument having been fixed by the Honorable William Kraft in Philadelphia in June of 1957 and was decided on December 22, 1958.

At which time, there was a rejection by Judge Kraft of certain motions and a grant of certain other motions on the part of the defendant, respondents who are here now.

Before there was actually an order entered, there was application made by the plaintiff seeking the transfer of the action to the Southern District of New York and that was granted by Judge Kraft conformably to Section 1406 (a).

There was no specific reference by Judge Kraft to the problem of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction over the transferred defendants.

Thereafter in the Southern District of New York, the clerk of that court refused to issue new summonses to the transferred defendants for the reason that there were already returns of service of those summonses as to those defendants from the action in the Easter District Court of Philadelphia.

The individuals who had been transferred, three in number filed answers in New York and the matter continues as to them.

But the two corporate defendants select operating company and UBO, United Booking Office renewed their motions to dismiss and thereafter, Judge Palmieri in the Southern District granted their motions.

This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

John M. Harlan II:

But what about the defendant's time?

Edwin P. Rome:

Yes sir.

At the time of argument in the Easter District Court in Philadelphia sir, Mr. Heiman was still alive and there had been an effort made to serve him by leaving a copy of the summons at an office in Philadelphia.

Thereafter, he died and I must admit quite frankly sir, there was no attempt made to substitute his executors or trustees thereafter.

The fact is that insofar as Mr. Heiman or his estate is concern, we as petitioners here do not press any point with regard to the decision made below in -- in his case.