21 Cited authorities

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.
486 U.S. 800 (1988) Cited 3,140 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law
Montana v. United States
440 U.S. 147 (1979) Cited 3,600 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"
Arizona v. California
460 U.S. 605 (1983) Cited 2,219 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that res judicata barred re-opening the quantification of tribes' Winters rights
Hoffman v. Blaski
363 U.S. 335 (1960) Cited 1,363 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
Moon v. Harrison Piping Supply
465 F.3d 719 (6th Cir. 2006) Cited 701 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over IIED claim because " claim implicate[d] complex aspects of Michigan law"
Walker v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL
517 F. Supp. 2d 801 (E.D. Va. 2007) Cited 99 times
Finding that to be considered, a document attached to a motion to dismiss must "be central or integral to the claim in the sense that its very existence, and not the mere information it contains, gives rise to the legal rights asserted."
Hayman Cash Register Co. v. Sarokin
669 F.2d 162 (3d Cir. 1982) Cited 203 times
Holding that law of the case prevented the New Jersey District Court from redetermining jurisdictional issue previously decided by the District of Columbia District Court, and noting that "the principles of comity among courts of the same level of the federal system provide further reason why . . . an issue already decided by a court of equal authority" should not be reexamined
Cole v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Idaho
366 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 77 times
Finding that the first factor is "affirmatively presented in the context of a disqualification of counsel" because it impairs the parties' right to counsel of their choice and this harm also satisfies the second factor
Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
769 F. Supp. 2d 991 (E.D. Va. 2011) Cited 56 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding the plaintiff's connection to this District “tenuous” because plaintiff was a “ ‘non-practicing entity,’ ” who did “not research and develop new technology but rather acquire [d] patents, license[d] the technology, and sue[d] alleged infringers”
Va. Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
928 F. Supp. 2d 863 (E.D. Va. 2013) Cited 35 times
Granting a plaintiff's initial choice of forum substantial deference in part because it researched and developed the patented technologies there
Section 636 - Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
28 U.S.C. § 636 Cited 503,939 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"
Rule 72 - Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Cited 168,061 times 20 Legal Analyses
Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,511 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 1406 - Cure or waiver of defects
28 U.S.C. § 1406 Cited 14,247 times 52 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that transfer is proper to any district or division in which the action could have been brought

DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Time, Inc.

21 Cited authorities

Holding that the appeal belonged before the regional circuit because the claims did not arise under patent law

Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"

Holding that res judicata barred re-opening the quantification of tribes' Winters rights

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 district court should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over IIED claim because " claim implicate[d] complex aspects of Michigan law"

Finding that to be considered, a document attached to a motion to dismiss must "be central or integral to the claim in the sense that its very existence, and not the mere information it contains, gives rise to the legal rights asserted."

Finding that the first factor is "affirmatively presented in the context of a disqualification of counsel" because it impairs the parties' right to counsel of their choice and this harm also satisfies the second factor

Finding the plaintiff's connection to this District “tenuous” because plaintiff was a “ ‘non-practicing entity,’ ” who did “not research and develop new technology but rather acquire [d] patents, license[d] the technology, and sue[d] alleged infringers”

Granting a plaintiff's initial choice of forum substantial deference in part because it researched and developed the patented technologies there

Holding that when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, our review of the district court's resulting decision is for plain error so long as the party "has been served with notice that [this consequence] will result from a failure to object"

Granting a party fourteen days to object to a Magistrate Judge's non-dispositive order

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

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