14 Cited authorities

Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Co.
330 U.S. 518 (1947) Cited 1,162 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that when the plaintiff has chosen his home forum, he should not be deprived of it absent a "clear showing" of either "oppressiveness and vexation" or evidence that the chosen forum is "inappropriate"
Lou v. Belzberg
834 F.2d 730 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 695 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
In re Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. Sec. Lit.
418 F. Supp. 2d 164 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) Cited 86 times
Holding that only "minimal weight" should be afforded to this factor given a difference in median disposition time of 2.7 months
Foster v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.
No. C 07-04928 SI (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2007) Cited 59 times
Finding evidence of forum shopping in a wage-and-hour class-action dispute in which no plaintiff resided in the forum
In re Amkor Technology, Inc.
Civil Action No. 06-298 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 28, 2006) Cited 39 times
Transferring securities case involving a company with Pennsylvania offices because "the vast majority of events and public statements alleged in the Complaint occurred or were made in Arizona from the Company's Arizona Headquarters"
Gerin v. Aegon USA, Inc.
No. C 06-5407 SBA, (Docket Nos. 28, 36, 39, 47 51) (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2007) Cited 19 times
Denying a motion to stay as moot where relief could not be granted consistent with the court's opinion
Alexander v. Franklin Resources, Inc.
No. C 06-7121 SI (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2007) Cited 13 times
Finding forum shopping despite a different legal theory in the second suit because the claims in the previous suit arose "out of the same factual predicate"
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
Stewart v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.
No. C 09-5348 PJH (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2010) Cited 1 times
No. C 09-5348 PJH. February 10, 2010 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER PHYLLIS HAMILTON, District Judge Before the court is defendant's Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.'s ("Bank") motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California ("Eastern District") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff Casey Stewart ("Stewart") opposes this motion. Having carefully read the parties' papers, considered the relevant legal authority, and heard the parties' oral arguments
Tropos Networks Inc. v. IPCO, LLC
No. C 05-04281 JSW (N.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2006)
No. C 05-04281 JSW. July 7, 2006 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION JEFFREY WHITE, District Judge INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, transfer of action on grounds of inconvenient forum filed by Defendant IPCO, LLC ("IPCO"). Having considered the parties' pleadings, the record in this case, relevant legal
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
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
Section 77v - Jurisdiction of offenses and suits
15 U.S.C. § 77v Cited 1,051 times 28 Legal Analyses
Granting "concurrent" jurisdiction

Rafton v. Rydex Series Funds et al

14 Cited authorities

Holding that when the plaintiff has chosen his home forum, he should not be deprived of it absent a "clear showing" of either "oppressiveness and vexation" or evidence that the chosen forum is "inappropriate"

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

Holding that only "minimal weight" should be afforded to this factor given a difference in median disposition time of 2.7 months

Finding evidence of forum shopping in a wage-and-hour class-action dispute in which no plaintiff resided in the forum

Transferring securities case involving a company with Pennsylvania offices because "the vast majority of events and public statements alleged in the Complaint occurred or were made in Arizona from the Company's Arizona Headquarters"

Denying a motion to stay as moot where relief could not be granted consistent with the court's opinion

Finding forum shopping despite a different legal theory in the second suit because the claims in the previous suit arose "out of the same factual predicate"

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

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Granting "concurrent" jurisdiction