45 Cited authorities

Daimler AG v. Bauman
571 U.S. 117 (2014) Cited 5,659 times 236 Legal Analyses
Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
Van Dusen v. Barrack
376 U.S. 612 (1964) Cited 4,635 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"
Norfolk v. James
543 U.S. 14 (2004) Cited 686 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the carrier was the owner's agent for the "single, limited purpose" of determining limitations on the liability of the carrier's downstream subcontractor and that it would be "unsustainable" to find that the carrier was "automatically empowered to be the cargo owner's agent in every sense"
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.
211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 1,598 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding the same in context of forum-selection-clause prohibition in California's franchise statute
Ranza v. Nike, Inc.
793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 581 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that employer was not an alter ego of its parent corporation, but that if it had been, the parent corporation's contacts could be attributed to the employer to establish personal jurisdiction over the employer
Emp’rs Mut. Cas. v. Bartile Roofs
618 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2010) Cited 611 times
Holding that under Utah law, the policy definition of the term "suit" made the insurer's duty to defend dependent on the underlying allegations of liability
Picot v. Weston
780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 527 times
Holding that the defendant's two trips to California did not create sufficient minimum contacts to subject him to personal jurisdiction
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner
417 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 463 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding venue improper unless "significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff's claim . . . occurred in the district in question, even if other material events occurred elsewhere"
Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Martino
36 F.3d 291 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 586 times
Holding venue improper in Eastern District of Pennsylvania when all but one event relevant to contract, trademark, and unfair trade practice claims took place in Michigan
Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman's Ins. Co.
348 U.S. 310 (1955) Cited 581 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that in the absence of controlling federal maritime law principles, state law determines an insurer's duties and responsibilities
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 347,250 times 923 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,461 times 185 Legal Analyses
Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 27,956 times 197 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 1406 - Cure or waiver of defects
28 U.S.C. § 1406 Cited 14,215 times 52 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that transfer is proper to any district or division in which the action could have been brought
Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
28 U.S.C. § 1746 Cited 10,076 times 17 Legal Analyses
Permitting the use of declarations instead
Section 1333 - Admiralty, maritime and prize cases
28 U.S.C. § 1333 Cited 4,498 times 11 Legal Analyses
Granting federal district courts original jurisdiction over "[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction"
Section 1390 - Scope
28 U.S.C. § 1390 Cited 155 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that “the term ‘venue’ refers to the geographic specification of the proper court or courts for the litigation of a civil action that is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district courts in general”

Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. Musket Corporation

45 Cited authorities

Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"

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

Holding the same in context of forum-selection-clause prohibition in California's franchise statute

Holding that employer was not an alter ego of its parent corporation, but that if it had been, the parent corporation's contacts could be attributed to the employer to establish personal jurisdiction over the employer

Holding that under Utah law, the policy definition of the term "suit" made the insurer's duty to defend dependent on the underlying allegations of liability

Holding that the defendant's two trips to California did not create sufficient minimum contacts to subject him to personal jurisdiction

Holding venue improper unless "significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff's claim . . . occurred in the district in question, even if other material events occurred elsewhere"

Holding venue improper in Eastern District of Pennsylvania when all but one event relevant to contract, trademark, and unfair trade practice claims took place in Michigan

Holding that in the absence of controlling federal maritime law principles, state law determines an insurer's duties and responsibilities

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

Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Recognizing that transfer is proper to any district or division in which the action could have been brought

Permitting the use of declarations instead

Granting federal district courts original jurisdiction over "[a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction"

Providing that “the term ‘venue’ refers to the geographic specification of the proper court or courts for the litigation of a civil action that is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the district courts in general”