# Brief of Respondents in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari — Couture v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0039%3A06 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief of Respondents in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1964 - **Citation:** 379 U.S. 853 ## Text é . PINAL A RE Ce OS Th AAAI EA DAD rh ee wna & +e we — ~e 3 4 . ) . IN THE u _ Supreme Citet of the Yuited States { d OCTOBER TERM, Bae tise Nita Seas Nos st. “ee FRANCIS L. VAN DUSEN, United States - District Jude | et al., Petitioners, 2 f- 0 ROBERTA BARRACK, Administratrix, etc., et al., ? a ‘agentes ‘BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS LAISTER, BIRENBAUM, AND of SYLVIA BARRACK, IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR 0 a "Ler S. KRernDLer, ie : fap SEES e 99 Park Avenue, ae 2 A mth ; ee ¥ New York 16, N. Y., . Ass ei . Arram P. Ptwosky, a > 1010 Lumberman’s Bldg., he ; ; : Philadelphia 7, Pa., gars. ey cy Davin M. Hass, " © %y . See 1530 Chestnut Street, : = 4 3 . Philadelphia 2, ee ¢, fr eo ; eh BE | et * ®Attorneys for Respondents, a : Laister, Birenbaym, Li eS: "and “oe Barrack. ioc A. * SINcoFF: : . : : Jack L. Kroner oh May - Geratp A. Roppie sg, | Toa” | eS Se heap von y F oP 1st Lat Ff ‘ . s c 5 +. —————————————eeeeeee — : cn thadscbbanis Peeseited Gee iesnG RIT. Statement ‘of the Case Viadtee toes SET O ER ERS Sbeidi ds 1. The Actions Below aided sk Ecueaine ". 2 Order of Transfer ........... Stk Laci} 3. Writ of Mandamus ......0..-.6.-... enier Ee Reasons FOR Denyixe THE Wait ae : - -. 1. The Decision Below Has Very Limited Ap- plication. Its Alleged Effect Has ‘Been Grossly Exaggerated .............:.. Pee ere | 2. The Decision Below Is Coneat . Ol tee POP Ge 8. The Decision Below Is Corfect on Other ” Grounds, Also, and Conseq pay Should Not . Be Disturbed peWe Snavatet\; acta, ee geees ; ‘Taste, OF Cases heal Bullock, 330 U. 8. 188 (1947) ......21.. 00 Ashley v. Read Const. Co., 195 F. Supp. 727 (D. C. _ Wyo. 1961) meee teste eeee rece es REE PRE ES Boughton v. Shoulders, 116-F. Supp, 391° cw. B. a. ; ec dgdousmdes Sveavewedesncess peeb ds e08aee alee 0 Soe eh PES Cee , Bradshaw v. Moyers, 152 F. vhosts 249 (D. C. Ind. WOT? cv vesovcc cit seveee eed eceecectacesecsees ~ Wi : . ih a Bs ea ‘ mitt eo | ~~ Campbell v. Hughes,’ 155 Ala. 591, MBO. 52-055 itizens’ Fidelity Bank and Trust Co. v. Baese, 186 _F. Supp. 683: (D. C_Tenn. WINS bck cccivdccase |Cobarn v. Coleman, 75.F. Supp. 107 (D.C.S.C. 1947) | Crawford v. The S.S. Shirley, Lykes, 148 F. Supp. 958 i) * (S.D.NLY. 1957) ..... lesa deok batch thdssme cass Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1988) . | Florida’ Cent. and_P. R. Co? v. Sulivgn, 150 Fed. 10 bey Cir. 1903) ./...-++-! Sie de% ba sbv yp ciks's ve's v. Lykes Brothgrs 8.3. Company, 117 F: Supp. 234 (S.D.N. Y. 1983) piss be THs abies < o Ghilain v. Couture, 84 N. 77 48,146 Atl. 595 (1929). . Greene v. Goodyear, 112 F. Supp. 27 (D. €. Pa. 1953) i Griffin v. MeCoach, 313 U. S498 (1941) ............ Hall v. So. R. Co., 146 N. C. 345, 59 §. E. 879 (1907) — ‘Holt v. Middlebroak, 214 F. 2d 187 (4th Cir. 1954) . Jeffersonville, M.’& I. R. Co. v. Hendricks, i toa | 7 48 CRORE) 4 0:6 siciaisigaicits whines oo ke dap oncacess Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. . Cutter, 16 Kan. 568 (1876) . Kent. v. Kansas Power and Light ee 123 F. “Ofiea OS Ci Ca TON) “oc, ooo once cccdee dee Kerr v. Basham, 62 8. D. 301 (1934) ... kécene a ee \ Kilberg v. Northeast Airlines, 9 N. Y. 2d 34, 211 N.Y. Supp. 2d 138, 172 N. KE. 2d 526 (1961) .......... ' Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U. - 487 ON Fe TELA RSS oe ee Le Louisville and NR Co. v. Brantley, 96 Ky. 297, 28 S. W. 477 ODED 0 t0 23 63 oe e'as 00 Bo aie. o oy oon er a ‘ ’ Memphis én C. Packet Co. v. _Pikey, 142 Ind. 304, Os Be OR i obo oin on ck caps ntuewagss esse Noel v. St. Johnsbury Trucking Co., 157 F. Supp. 432 : (D. C. Conn.) TEES RG SEES Sty Ree | Pearson y. Northeast Airliaes, Inc., 199 F: Sein 539 _ {S.D.N.Y. 1961), rev’d 307 FP. 24 131 (2nd -Cir. ’ 1962), rev’d en bane 309 F. 24-553 (2nd Cir. 1962), cert. den. —— U. 8: —— (Feb. 18, 1963) Popp v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co., 96 Fed. 465 (CC. Ohio SOE Weds duiddawlbe cited Sex sone Gabuieese ‘Provost v. Int’L. Giant Safety Coaster Co., 152 ais “Div. 83, 136 N.Y.S. 654 (1st Dept. 1912), aff'd | - 208 N. 'Y. 635, 102 N. E. 1112 (1913)'...4.5.3... Public Service Electrie Co. vo aoe 257. Fed. 933 (Sud Cir. 1919) . 20.0000 Wbiarkciugehstiekane Reynolds v.~Baltimore & Ofo Railroad Co., 185 F. 2d 27 (7th Cir. 1900), cert. ' den. 340 U. S. 947 * Seay oes CRISS y Blea ae Srnec aig Pen Rybolt v. Jaret, 112 F. 24 642 (4th Cir. 1940) ead St. Louis S. R. Co. v. Giaham, 83 Ark. 61, seeybieg W..: _ 700 (1907). ......... Tip dp ductive cptwnte dines hae | MASAI se con eR 4 Taylor v. McKee, 121 Ga. 223, 48 S. E. 943 (1904) . Wabash, St. L. and P. R. Co. v. Shacklett, "105. Ill. . 364 (| SRE eae eee ee Wallan v. Rankin, 173 F. 2d 488 (9th Cir. 1949) ...... Western U. ‘Tel. Co. v. Lipscomb, 22 App. D. C. -104 SOI 58 Aion ideo cses feseeceebens ween rf Viaggio v. Field, 47 F. Supp. 643 (D. CG. Md. 1950)". 3° . - a . f . « : - : $ a . . . ‘ : bee : . . 4 n Pile 4 os” % . : s . aig ‘ . - ~ é ; rm : ‘ Nes ~ | t es ° P , ‘ ’ . Sh . ow - oy . . 2 F a 2 ' oe eg $ . f P “ nN : « : > ° ° - i d . me Olte be! . ; Q - es ‘ 4 : "® « 4 x: 2 é e 2 ; ‘ ; 4 ve d ° . _* ° \ 5 wee lis: 7 . . i 3 . . . > ; ° voy i po ‘ . o \ . - F; ° . . * id ’ > . : ° z : : - he . » . . : . . ’ Sas . wo # : ee . = . . > er E . : >, A e! > 6 ty . o* begun aeetinehape man tome opera, 1962 No. 738 ‘ } ’ dé. vv a PS ey Faanors L. Vax Dvssx, United States District Judge, et al., . ; Petitioners, so" “v. : ‘Roperta Barrack, Administratrix, ete., et al:, < . ws BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS LAISTER, BIRENBAUM, AND SYLVIA BARRACK, IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR cd -@ . 1. Where plaintiffs lacked capacity to sue in Massa- chusetts, was transfer, under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), proper? eo Would transfer from. Pessosisaade to Massachusetts be*proper where it might deprive Pennsylvania citizens of | the benefits of Pennsylvania — ov 2 a - The Actions Below The actions bélow brought in the district of their resi- dence by respondents Doris Laister, Selma Birenbaum, and Sylvia Barrack, against Eastern Airlines only, are - for wrongful death of their respective husbands in the — Boston crash of October 4; 1960. ‘Sach 0 Gn Qenslent: wan & dition enl-cecldent oh _.. Pennsylvania; the estate ofeach is being administered in Pennysivania ; and each of the respondents is,a citizen of © _ Pennsylvania, except Doris Laister, who was a citizen of. - Pennsylvania at the time of the accident and at the time the action was started, but who has since moved to Flerida. The flight was from Boston to Philadelphia, and the Biren- baum and Barrack tickets had been hought in Pennsylvania. 2. Order of Transfer ° ‘Defendant, Eastern. Airlines, moved to transfer eens” -actions to Massachusetts., This motion paralleled similar ~ motions in other cases arising out of the accident made by _ this defendant and: other defendants in‘ those actions. Transfer was resisted on the facts, and in addition plain- tiffs argfed that transfer would deny them the possible application ‘of Pennsylvania public policy. The District Court of Pennsylvania: ordered the transfer of these ac- - _tions and all other actions arising out of the accident. 2 — 3. Writ of Mandamus — -_ Ossplaintiffs’ petitions, the Court of Appeals directed att issuance of a writ of mandamus. The court held that sirice capacity to sue is governed by Massachusetts law under which a foreign: administrator lacks capacity, the actions were not ones which ‘‘might have been brought”’ in the District of Massachusetts and, consequently, could not have been transferred there, : « . a -- 1.. The Decision Below Has Very Limited Application. Its Alleged Effect Has Been Grossly Exaggerated. Petitioners maintain that the decision of the Court of Appeals will have a grave and far reaching effect on Section 1404(a); indeed that it will ‘‘nullify” it in death: actions (Pet. General Motors Corp., Eastern Airlines, Inc. and Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 6-8). They state that the - . potential transferee District. Courts. would be limited to. "Seven in number, whereas 44 would be excluded. This ms claim is grosaly exaggerated. - It is to be noted that transfer, unter 1404(a), may be. ordered only to districts where actions might have been , “‘brought’’, and ‘not to those where they might have been maintained, or rene obtained, as stated by petitioners (Pet. 7). The fact is that, in addition to Massochmestia; oniy' six. jurisdictions have held that a foreign administrator lacks the capacity to bring suit fur wrongful death.’ 4Of the remaining “44 jurisdictions 30 have held that a foreign administrator “_ bring a rasa. ge death aetign.' * Connecticut: Noel v. St. astiael Pind Co., 157 F. Supp. 452 (DC Conn.); Kentucky: Louisville and NR Co. v. B , 96 Ky. 297,-28 S. W. 477 (1894) ; North Carolina: Hall v. So. R. Co., 146 N. C. 345, $9 S. E. 879 (1907) ; South Carolina : Coburn v. Coleman, 75 F. Supp. 107 (D.CS.C. 1947); Virginia :, uk v. Middlebrook, 214 F. 2d 187 (4th Cir. 1954) ; West Vir- : “Rybolt v. Jarett, 112 F. 2d 642 (4th Cir, 1940),- Fs aias Ailsa aiainiedd tanttnan & Pet. 7). As to the remaining jurisdictions see: 52 A.L.R. 2d 1048-1073; 16. - Am.*Jur., Death § 265, 184-185 ;. Moore's Federal Practice (2d ed:), Vol. 3, $17.19, p 386 ; 31 Harv. L. Rev. 1167. Alabama: ’ Ala. Code Title 61 ¢'151. Campbell v. Hughes, 155 Ala. 591; 47 So. 45; Arkansas : St. Louis S. K. Co. v. Graham, 83 Ark. 61, (footnote continued on next page.) . 4 af Fourteen states have not decided the question, but reason : and text writers favor the overwhelming —— -of au-— thority. ' : In predicting dire ‘epuihdennees to the federal transfer : practice, petitioners have. apparently failed to between a foreign administrator suing as an administrator, ‘and his suing under a wrongful death statute. Where a foreign adminstrator is: suing as an ordinary perecnal Bae winners et for. the use and benefit of the — ‘o + (footnote continued from page 3) 7 fo2 S. W. 700 (1907); California: Wallen v. Rankin, 473 F. 2d 488 (Mh Cir. Phe. District of Columbia : Western U. Tel. Co. v. Li ‘ og, D..<. tet (1903) ; Florida: Florida Cent. ond eR AS lion, 120 Fed, 79 (Sth i. 1903) ; Georgia: Ga.. Code § 1133401 2403, T. por x. McKee, 121 Gaz 223, 48 S: E. 943 (1904): Illinois: Wabash, St. L. and P. R. Co. v. ‘Shacklet, 105 Tl. 364 (1883) ; Indiana: Jeffersonville, M. & I..R. Co.-v. Hendricks, 41 Ind. (1872), . Memphis and C. Packet Co. v. Pikey, 142 er Sh E. : (1895), Bradshaw v.. Moyers, - pages ‘249 (D- C. Ind. 1957); Kansas: Kent v. Kansas ‘cht Ca, 123 F. . 662 (D. C. Kan. 1964) ;. rh Smith v, Potomac Edison 2, 165 F, Supp. 681 ‘D.C. 4. nS Mean 399 { New Hampshire: Ghilain v. Couture, 84. : ; 48, 146 Atl. 39 Teeaes ; 1929); New Jersey: Public Serv. Electric Co. v. Post, 257 Fed. 053 (God Gir. 1919) N. J. Rev. Stat. §§ 3A, - 12-7; New York: Provost v. Int'l. Giant Safety Coaster Co., 4 . App. Div. 83, 136 N-Y.S. 654 (1st Dept. 1912 , affd. 208.N. 'Y 635, 102 N. E. 1112 (1942). N. Y¥. oe ok tes Law ies ‘Dakota: foe Basham, 62 3. D. 301 fous been South Fi Bank on Trust Gehley v. Bacse, (D; “C. Tenn. 1955) ; Woe tohiy. shley v. Read Const. 0., 195 . 727 ¢D. 1). See also: Minnesota: Minn. a 57305; Mississippi Miss. Code Ann. §§ 622, 1453; Ne- BER Neb. Rev. 30-807, 30-809’; Kansas y. Co. v. facet 16 568 (1876) (iterpreting Kansas ov taney courte Sarton ~ aati tac ape Resa cited n Oklahoma Statutes Annotated). —_. *See: Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.), Vol. 3, par. 17.19, p. 1386; 21 Harv. L Rev. 1167. 16 Am. Jur., Death § 265, pp. . J Ys 5 ¢ * general estate of his decedent, he lacks authority to. sue. ‘on the theory that no state can allow property within its jurisdiction to be diverted so as to deprive its own citi- zens of an opportunity to enforce their claims against it. - :**But practically all of the courts which have considered | the questions have admitted an exception to the rule where * ee the personal representative issuing, Hot for the benefit of the general estate, but for the use and benefit of a specified person or classes of *person . . .”’- under a wrongful death statute, Citizens’ Fidelity Bank and Trust >. - Co. v. Baese, 136 F. Supp. 683, 684 (D. “C. Tenn. 1955). In the latter case, the administrator is suing not in his. . capacity as such but i in the character of a trustee or agent ~ _for the benefit of persons entitled to recover. AB the re- ~ covery belongs to the named beneficiaries, it is not an asset of the estate and the rights of local creditors are not involved. Massachusetts, if not unique, is in ‘the onal minority in holding that a foreign administrator may not stie under a- wrongful death statute without first ‘obtaining ancillary - letters in that state. (Boutilier v. Wesinger, : ‘322 Mass. =. 495, 78 N. E. 2d 195 [1948]). ; ‘In summation, the number: of etieliaihiics, in which - courts have held that a foreign administrator cannot bring | an action for the benefit of the deeedent’s s. heirs under the forum’s wrongful death statute is small (7 including . Massachusetts) in comparison to those jurisdictions which permit such gn action (at least 30, and probably 44). For ‘this reason, the administration of Section 1404(a), if it.is - - affected at all by the decision below, wili be affected only with respect to a handful of states. "2: The Decision Below Is.Correct. /-. _ be Ser Inasmuch as the plaintiffs Laister, Birenbaum, and Syb via Bafrack did not raise the narrow point on which the _ Court of Appeals based its decision these respondents will o -\ 6 not deal with this issue Aerem, except to indicate their . agreement with the views stated by the Court below. ; , 3. The Decision Below Is Correct on Other Grounds, Ne Also, and Consequently Should Not Be Disturbed: "Massachusetts, law limits recovery ‘in a. wrongful death action to $20,000. There is no such limitation in Penn- - _ sylvania law. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that _ Pennsylvania public policy would prohibit the invocation .. of the Massachusetts limitation. ‘Pennsylvania’s Constitu. ._ - -- tion (Art. 3, §21) has-a prohibition against eee déath limjtations. Thus it appears that Pennsylvania in_ would fllow the doctrine of Kilberg v. Northeast Air 9 Mh Y. 2d 34, © ; "211 N.Y. 2d 138, 172 N. E. 2d 526:(1961), in which the Baerier By 2 gale ey ene ee opna-emgge limitation was contrary to New York’s public policy, and would not be ‘enforced, although the right of action for wrongful death ‘créated by Massachusetts law would be - enforced by New York courts. <2 - The constitutionality of the Kilberg doctrine has: been . ee "upheld in: Pearson v. Northeast Airlines, Inc., 199 F: Supp. 539. (S.D.N.Y. 1961), rev’d 307 F. 2d 131. (2nd Cir. 1962), rev’d en banc 309 F. 2d 553 (2nd Cir. 1 hy Op U. 8S. —— (Feb, 18, 1963). . | Cases raising the Kilberg question, i.e., whether Penn’ ; _ sylvania would refuse to enforce another state’s limitation -of damages for wrongful death, are presently pending be- fore Pennsylvania state courts.’ While it cannot. be stated - with certainty that Pennsylvania: follows Kilberg it ap- "+ pears to respondents to be the overwhelming probability. ‘ Mass. Gen. Law Ann. Ch. 229, §2 (Supp. 1961). _ 6 Shackton v. Edgiern Airlines, and Griffith v. United Airlines, pending i in Pennsylvania’s Court of Common Pleas. | % a In any event, if ‘the instant cases are\transferred, the Massachusetts or transferee court may not have the power to apply Pennsylvania’ public policy, orev: such power, may not choose to exercise i} ° ‘one problem arises out of the basic proposition estab- by Erie’ Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, U,, S. 64 prooetig that a federal district court ‘must apply the sub- stantive law of the state in which it sits. This substantive law includes its conflict of laws rules, Klazon Co. v. Stentor - Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941), and .its* public policy;.." - °- Griffin v. McCoach, 313 U. S. 498 (1941); and’ Angel v. Bul. - lock, 330 U. S. 183 (1947). Thus it would seem initially from these important decisions that the transferee cout would be obliged to follow the public policy of Massa- - chusetts, rather than Penisylvania, the transferor state. _ Several cases support this view: ‘Reynolds v. Baltimore ¢ Ohio Railroad Co., 185 F. 2d 27 (7th Cir. 1950), cert. den. - 340 U. S. 947 (195f) ; Boughton v. Shoulders, 116 F. Supp. 391 ) ; Viaggio v. Field, 117 F. Supp. 643 (D. C. Md. 1959); Frachoux v. Lykes Brothers S.S. Com- ' pany, 117 .F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.¥. 1953); Crawford v. . The 8.8. Shirley Lykes, 148 F. Supp. 958 (S.D.N.Y 1957) ; see Kaufman, Observations on Transfers under Section 1404(a) of the New Judicial Code, 10 ¥.R.D. 395. The deprivation of plaintiffs’ right to the beriefits of:the | public policy of the state of their residence is far more | serious than the simple removal of a case from one district to another and is not ‘in the interest of justice’ under Sec- tion Miah | Pagthe rae at ot Appeais’ decision is correct - not only om the ground stated, bat for the additional rea- it does have . i aye ~ \ p a. + td way “ ——ans > ee a eS ' en | @ i i : e 8 - , & son, that. to allow a transfer from iain to Massa- - 4 : ‘ : ‘chusetts might well ‘deprive plaintiffs: of the benefits of _Pennsy)vania public policy sar Pinas to recoveries in ociced : _ ful death actions. ° For the. reasons bel forth above, the petition for y writ of certiorari should be denied.. , ” Respcetfully submitted, | eee ti 4 tu < ~ Amtast P- Piece: Davm M. Hass, - Attorneys for Respondents, : Laister, Birerbaum, and . : i Sylvia Barrack. - ° Of. Counsel / : ee ? : Lee S..Keemspien, = 5 ee oa . Mitton G. Srxcorr, tas : - _ .Jack L: Knonzr, : i epee oa - Geratp A. Rosie. .. - Ey Sat * | Yo ne eee : --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0039%3A06. Public record. Not legal advice.