§Why CasetextPricing

ESTATE OF HIMOUD SAED ATBAN et al v. BLACKWATER USA et al

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Dismiss the Amended Complaint For Lack of Venue and to Dismiss Non-Legal Entities

20 Cited authorities

  1. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

    454 U.S. 235 (1981)   Cited 4,738 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that potential change in law cannot, by itself, fend off dismissal under forum non conveniens absent showing that new law is "clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory"

  2. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders

    437 U.S. 340 (1978)   Cited 4,393 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Holding that that the production of putative class members' names pursuant to Federal Rule 26 was not "within the scope of legitimate discovery."

  3. Mitrano v. Hawes

    377 F.3d 402 (4th Cir. 2004)   Cited 383 times
    Holding that where no evidentiary hearing is held, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that venue is proper

  4. U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co.

    241 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 185 times
    Holding that district court findings were subject to clear error review where parties did not seek evidentiary hearing and "filed multiple briefs and extensive evidence with the court over a two-year period"

  5. Setco Enters. Corp. v. Robbins

    19 F.3d 1278 (8th Cir. 1994)   Cited 129 times
    Holding that the Eighth Circuit no longer asks which district among two or more potential forums is the "best" venue.

  6. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp.

    104 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2000)   Cited 100 times
    Finding that transfer of venue was supported by plaintiff's previous decision to litigate "clearly related" action in transferee forum

  7. Centerville ALF, Inc. v. Balanced Care Corp.

    197 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (S.D. Ohio 2002)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that venue was proper over a corporate defendant under Section 1391(b) where the defendant waived its objections to personal jurisdiction

  8. Modaressi v. Vedadi

    441 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that venue for a civil RICO claim may be established pursuant to the general venue provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and collecting cases

  9. FC Investment Group LC v. Lichtenstein

    441 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that "[t]he 'substantial part of the events or omissions' test is satisfied by a communication transmitted to or from the district in which the cause of action was filed, given a sufficient relationship between the communication and the cause of action"

  10. Lentz v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    464 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 2006)   Cited 24 times
    Determining on a motion to transfer that only the second inquiry requires examination where it is undisputed that the action could have been brought in the transferee district

  11. Rule 41 - Dismissal of Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 41   Cited 108,151 times   195 Legal Analyses
    Holding that such dismissal "operates as an adjudication on the merits"

  12. 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

  13. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 27,824 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred