§Why CasetextPricing

Ergo Media Capital, LLC et al v. Bluemner

OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 39 Response in Support of Motion . Document

23 Cited authorities

  1. Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S.

    424 U.S. 800 (1976)   Cited 8,186 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in limited circumstances, federal courts should abstain from deciding a case when there are related proceedings pending in state court

  2. Baker v. General Motors Corp.

    522 U.S. 222 (1998)   Cited 503 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Michigan judgment was not entitled to full faith and credit because it impermissibly interfered with Missouri's control of litigation brought by parties who were not before the Michigan court

  3. Phillips v. Audio Active

    494 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 566 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that contract language stating proceedings "are to be brought in England" is a mandatory forum selection clause

  4. Conopco, Inc. v. Roll Intern

    231 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 418 times
    Holding that dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate where "it is clear from the face of the complaint, and matters of which the court may take judicial notice, that the plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of law" by claim preclusion

  5. Kline v. Burke Constr. Co.

    260 U.S. 226 (1922)   Cited 965 times
    Holding the lower federal courts "derive[] [their] jurisdiction wholly from the authority of Congress"

  6. Woodford v. Comm. Action Agency Greene Cty

    239 F.3d 517 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 263 times
    Holding that the sixth Colorado River factor did not favor abstention because "[a]wards of attorneys' fees are not available on the claims asserted in the state-court actions, and hence the relief available is not the same. . . . Having properly brought their federal claims in federal court, they are entitled to pursue those claims and, if successful, to be awarded the remedies with which Congress sought to encourage that pursuit."

  7. Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC

    813 F. Supp. 2d 489 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)   Cited 141 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendants' violation of SCA was neither willful nor intentional because there was no basis to conclude that defendants were "aware of the statute, or knew that their conduct was otherwise unlawful"

  8. Diorinou v. Mezitis

    237 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 92 times
    Finding that children were habitually resident in Greece where children were citizens of both the United States and Greece, the father was a U.S. citizen, and the mother was a Greek citizen

  9. Shields v. Murdoch

    891 F. Supp. 2d 567 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 63 times

    Nos. 11 Civ. 4917 (PGG), 11 Civ. 5073 (PGG), 11 Civ. 5556 (PGG). 2012-09-18 Gregory L. SHIELDS, Derivatively on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. K. Rupert MURDOCH, James R. Murdoch, Lachlan K. Murdoch, Chase Carey, David F. Devoe, Joel Klein, Arthur M. Siskind, Sir Roderick I. Eddington, Andrew S.B. Knight, Thomas J. Perkins, Peter L. Barnes, José María Aznar, Natalie Bancroft, Kenneth E. Cowley, Viet Dinh, John L. Thornton, Defendants, and News Corporation, Nominal

  10. Ritani, LLC v. Aghjayan

    880 F. Supp. 2d 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)   Cited 58 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that likelihood of confusion was adequately pleaded based on defendant's intentional use of and association with plaintiff's "Ritani" mark in marketing materials

  11. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,373 times   184 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

  12. Section 1738 - State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit

    28 U.S.C. § 1738   Cited 7,521 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Referring to "[t]he Acts of the legislature" in the full faith and credit context

  13. Rule 13 - Counterclaim and Crossclaim

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 13   Cited 4,920 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether counterclaims are compulsory

  14. Section 426.30 - Failure to allege related cause of action against plaintiff in cross-complaint

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 426.30   Cited 208 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Except as otherwise provided by statute, if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded. (b) This section does not apply if either of the following are established: (1) The court in which the action is pending