providing that the very nature of the transfer inquiry forces a district judge to make a “guess” about convenience and justice, and “we should accept [her] guess unless it is too wild”
How later courts described this case
- providing that the very nature of the transfer inquiry forces a district judge to make a “guess” about convenience and justice, and “we should accept [her] guess unless it is too wild”
- movant must make out “a strong case” for transfer
- placing burden on movant despite presence of forum-selection clause
- interpreting § 1404(a) to require defendants to make “a strong case for a transfer”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SWAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree with dismissal of the appeal and with denial of the petition for a writ of mandamus, but I would place denial of the petition on the ground that this court lacks power to grant it. As said by Mr. Justice Roberts in De Beers Consol. Mines v. United States, 325 U.S. 212, at 217 , 65 S.Ct. 1130, 1133 , 89 L.Ed. 1566 : “When Congress withholds interlocutory reviews, § 262 [of the Judicial Code, now incorporated in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651 (a)] can, of course, not be availed of to correct a mere error in the exercise of conceded judicial power.” See also Ward Baking Co. v. Holtzoff, 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 34, 36 .