19 Cited authorities

Van Dusen v. Barrack
376 U.S. 612 (1964) Cited 4,693 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "change of venue under § 1404 generally should be, with respect to state law, but a change of courtrooms"
Hoffman v. Blaski
363 U.S. 335 (1960) Cited 1,380 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1404 —which permits the transfer of "any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought "—unambiguously means at the time the lawsuit was filed
Jazini ex rel. Jazini v. Nissan Motor Co.
148 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 1998) Cited 712 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "conclusory non-fact-specific jurisdictional allegations" and "legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation" do not meet the burden of a prima facie showing of jurisdiction
Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co.
97 F. Supp. 2d 549 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) Cited 389 times
Holding that a website operator transacted business in New York under the long-arm statute when its website would permit a user to apply for a loan
McGowan v. Smith
52 N.Y.2d 268 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 609 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that defendant exporter's visits to New York to conduct general marketing research did not "bear a substantial relationship" to products liability action arising from purchase of defendant's product in New York because "[w]hile these visits certainly may be characterized as `purposeful' . . . the occurrence of these visits serves merely to establish [the defendant exporter's] transitory physical presence within the State."
Kernan v. Kurz-Hastings, Inc.
175 F.3d 236 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 328 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that burden on Japanese defendant was insufficient to overcome its minimum contacts, particularly because "the conveniences of modern communication and transportation ease what would have been a serious burden only a few decades ago"
Opticare Corp. v. Castillo
25 A.D.3d 238 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) Cited 99 times
Holding that a substantial nexus existed where the alleged contractual breaches permitted appellants to transact business in the first place
AEC One Stop Group, Inc. v. CD Listening Bar, Inc.
326 F. Supp. 2d 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) Cited 73 times
Concluding in transfer analysis that defendant residents of California would be "subject to jurisdiction" in the Central District of California and that venue in that district was appropriate under special venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 1400
Hollins v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n
469 F. Supp. 2d 67 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) Cited 57 times
Finding sufficient contacts where defendant made "regular visits to New York to conduct business" over a period of at least ten years
Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Ducommun Inc.
724 F. Supp. 264 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) Cited 93 times
Denying transfer to a district where defendant's documents were located because doing so would merely shift the transportation burden from defendant to plaintiff
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 357,946 times 950 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 302 - Personal jurisdiction by acts of non-domiciliaries
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302 Cited 4,333 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"

Capitol Records LLC et al v. Videoegg Inc. et al

19 Cited authorities

Holding that a "change of venue under § 1404 generally should be, with respect to state law, but a change of courtrooms"

Holding that the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1404 —which permits the transfer of "any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought "—unambiguously means at the time the lawsuit was filed

Holding that "conclusory non-fact-specific jurisdictional allegations" and "legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation" do not meet the burden of a prima facie showing of jurisdiction

Holding that a website operator transacted business in New York under the long-arm statute when its website would permit a user to apply for a loan

Holding that burden on Japanese defendant was insufficient to overcome its minimum contacts, particularly because "the conveniences of modern communication and transportation ease what would have been a serious burden only a few decades ago"

Holding that a substantial nexus existed where the alleged contractual breaches permitted appellants to transact business in the first place

Concluding in transfer analysis that defendant residents of California would be "subject to jurisdiction" in the Central District of California and that venue in that district was appropriate under special venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 1400

Finding sufficient contacts where defendant made "regular visits to New York to conduct business" over a period of at least ten years

Denying transfer to a district where defendant's documents were located because doing so would merely shift the transportation burden from defendant to plaintiff

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that service may be made "to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode of the person to be served and by ... mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence"