This Note argues that a broad construction of section 1392(a) which would allow Aunt Bea to bring suit in the Southern District of California where Mayberry alone resides is preferable to a narrow construction which would restrict Bea to the Northern District where both defendants reside. Part I of this Note maintains that the language of section 1392(a) is ambiguous and does not indicate the clear intent of Congress, despite assertions to the contrary by proponents of both the broad and narrow constructions of the statute. Part II demonstrates that a superficially relevant Supreme Court decision tending to support the broad construction of section 1392(a) is not dispositive of the controversy. Part III argues that the extant legislative history is also inconclusive in determining the congressional intent on this issue. Finally, Part IV of this Note concludes that judicial policy grounded in fairness to both plaintiffs and defendants requires adoption of the broad construction of section 1392(a).
Brent E. Johnson,
Federal Venue Under Section1392(A): The Problem of the Multidistrict Defendant,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol85/iss2/5