11 Cited authorities

In re Volkswagen of Am.
545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,606 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding this prong to be satisfied when "the harm . . . will already have been done by the time the case is tried and appealed, and the prejudice suffered cannot be put back in the bottle"
In re Volkswagen AG
371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,385 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that it is reversible error for the district court to consider the convenience of counsel
In re TS Tech USA Corp.
551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 604 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court's refusal to considerably weigh this factor in favor of transfer was erroneous when the witnesses would need to travel approximately 900 more miles to attend trial in Texas than in Ohio
In re Nintendo Co.
589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 275 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "in a case featuring most witnesses and evidence closer to the transferee venue with few or no convenience factors favoring the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the trial court should grant a motion to transfer"
Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp.
90 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Tex. 2000) Cited 216 times
Holding that irrespective of the circumstances, plaintiff's choice of forum remains highly esteemed
In re Zimmer Holdings
609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 72 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that transfer of documents to a Texas office space was "recent, ephemeral, and an artifact of litigation," and therefore "entitled to no weight in the court's venue analysis"
In re Volkswagen of Am.
506 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 54 times
Rejecting requirement for the movant to show that the balance of convenience and justice substantially weighs in favor of transfer
Bascom v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc.
534 F. Supp. 2d 700 (W.D. Tex. 2008) Cited 9 times
No. A-07-CA-947-SS. February 13, 2008 Chris Portner, J. Trenton Bond, Reaud, Morgan Quinn, LLP, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff. Clayton E. Bailey, Maricela B. Siewczynski, Baker McKenzie, LLP, Dallas, TX, for Defendants. ORDER SAM SPARKS, District JudgeWest Page 701 BE IT REMEMBERED on the 13th day of February 2008, the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically Defendant Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.'s ("Maxim") Opposed Motion to Transfer Venue [# 16], Plaintiffs' Response
KUHL v. CITY OF FRISCO
No. 5:06CV253 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 3, 2007)
No. 5:06CV253. April 3, 2007 ORDER CAROLINE CRAVEN, Magistrate Judge Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges, City of Frisco's Motion to Transfer (Docket Entry # 10) was referred to the Honorable Caroline M. Craven for the purposes of hearing and determining said motion. The Court, having reviewed the relevant briefing, is of the opinion the motion to transfer should
Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 Cited 22,480 times 16 Legal Analyses
Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 16,891 times 108 Legal Analyses
Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"

InNova v. 3Com Corporation et al

11 Cited authorities

Holding this prong to be satisfied when "the harm . . . will already have been done by the time the case is tried and appealed, and the prejudice suffered cannot be put back in the bottle"

Holding that it is reversible error for the district court to consider the convenience of counsel

Holding that the district court's refusal to considerably weigh this factor in favor of transfer was erroneous when the witnesses would need to travel approximately 900 more miles to attend trial in Texas than in Ohio

Holding that "in a case featuring most witnesses and evidence closer to the transferee venue with few or no convenience factors favoring the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the trial court should grant a motion to transfer"

Holding that irrespective of the circumstances, plaintiff's choice of forum remains highly esteemed

Finding that transfer of documents to a Texas office space was "recent, ephemeral, and an artifact of litigation," and therefore "entitled to no weight in the court's venue analysis"

Rejecting requirement for the movant to show that the balance of convenience and justice substantially weighs in favor of transfer

Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system

Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"