§Why CasetextPricing

Martin v. Global Tel*Link Corporation

MOTION to Transfer Case [VENUE] TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 Cited authorities

  1. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.

    487 U.S. 22 (1988)   Cited 4,853 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal law determines the validity of a forum selection clause

  2. Van Dusen v. Barrack

    376 U.S. 612 (1964)   Cited 4,620 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"

  3. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.

    211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 1,586 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding the same in context of forum-selection-clause prohibition in California's franchise statute

  4. Cont'l Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585

    364 U.S. 19 (1960)   Cited 1,067 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 1404 permits transfer of in rem claims along with in personam claims to more convenient district, even though in rem claim standing alone could not have been brought in transferee district

  5. Lou v. Belzberg

    834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987)   Cited 694 times
    Holding that we had appellate jurisdiction over a case that had been transferred to an out-of-circuit district court because the appellant filed her notice of appeal before the transferred records were docketed in that court

  6. Hawkins v. Gerber Products Co.

    924 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013)   Cited 61 times
    Finding this factor neutral where movant didn't identify any relevant third-party witnesses

  7. U.S. Ship Management, Inc. v. Maersk Line, Ltd.

    357 F. Supp. 2d 924 (E.D. Va. 2005)   Cited 38 times
    Observing that "where a party has previously litigated a case involving similar issues and facts, 'a court in that district will likely be familiar with the facts of the case. As a matter of judicial economy, such familiarity is highly desirable.'"

  8. Berenson v. National Financial Services, LLC

    318 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004)   Cited 17 times
    Concluding that "[s]ince the corporate decisions underlying plaintiffs' claims were made in Boston, the claims `arose' there for the purposes of venue analysis"

  9. Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. v. Traber (In re Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. Sec. Litig.)

    Case No.: 3:14-CV-00399-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2015)   Cited 2 times
    Transferring class action case from Nevada to Georgia where plaintiffs lived in Nevada but nearly all defendants were located in Georgia

  10. Cardoza v. T-Mobile USA Inc.

    Case No. 08-5120 SC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2009)   Cited 5 times

    Case No. 08-5120 SC. March 18, 2009 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER Samuel Conti, Senior District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Transfer Venue ("Motion") filed by Defendant T-Mobile USA Inc. ("T-Mobile" or "Defendant"). Docket No. 12. Plaintiff Milton Cardoza ("Plaintiff" or "Cardoza") filed an Opposition and T-Mobile submitted a Reply. Docket Nos. 16, 23. For the following reasons, T-Mobile's Motion is GRANTED. II. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, a

  11. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,289 times   183 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 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 27,694 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

  13. Section 227 - Restrictions on use of telephone equipment

    47 U.S.C. § 227   Cited 5,643 times   733 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over actions brought by state attorney generals