36 Cited authorities

Van Dusen v. Barrack
376 U.S. 612 (1964) Cited 4,629 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"
Hoffman v. Blaski
363 U.S. 335 (1960) Cited 1,360 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1404 —which permits the transfer of "any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought "—unambiguously means at the time the lawsuit was filed
Emp’rs Mut. Cas. v. Bartile Roofs
618 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2010) Cited 610 times
Holding that under Utah law, the policy definition of the term "suit" made the insurer's duty to defend dependent on the underlying allegations of liability
In re TS Tech USA Corp.
551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 602 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
Gulf Ins. Co. v. Glasbrenner
417 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 461 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding venue improper unless "significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff's claim . . . occurred in the district in question, even if other material events occurred elsewhere"
Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Martino
36 F.3d 291 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 586 times
Holding venue improper in Eastern District of Pennsylvania when all but one event relevant to contract, trademark, and unfair trade practice claims took place in Michigan
Reese v. CNH America LLC
574 F.3d 315 (6th Cir. 2009) Cited 339 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that even though the CBA granted retirees life-time health-care benefits upon retirement, it did not resolve the scope, of those benefits because "the relevant CBA provisions suggest[ed] that the parties contemplated reasonable modifications"
Myers v. Bennett Law Offices
238 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 353 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding "substantial part" of events giving rise to tort claim occurs in district where plaintiff alleges "harms" were "felt"
Jenkins Brick Co. v. Bremer
321 F.3d 1366 (11th Cir. 2003) Cited 237 times
Holding that the venue statute "contemplates some cases in which venue will be proper in two or more districts."
Woodke v. Dahm
70 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 1995) Cited 239 times
Holding venue improper in Northern District of Iowa where plaintiff resided and felt effects of charged trademark violations because neither alleged "passing off" nor any other event having substantial connection to claims occurred there
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 346,412 times 923 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,393 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 27,860 times 197 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 1406 - Cure or waiver of defects
28 U.S.C. § 1406 Cited 14,162 times 52 Legal Analyses
Recognizing that transfer is proper to any district or division in which the action could have been brought
Section 240.14d-2 - Commencement of a tender offer
17 C.F.R. § 240.14d-2 Cited 27 times
Exempting the issuer from filing a Schedule 14D if its communication to shareholders does no more than identify the tender offer referred to, state that the issuer's management is studying the matter, and request that shareholders defer making a determination whether to tender their shares until they have received management's recommendation
Section 240.13e-4 - Tender offers by issuers
17 C.F.R. § 240.13e-4 Cited 14 times
Requiring that "[t]he consideration paid to any security holder for securities tendered in the tender offer [be] the highest consideration paid to any other security holder for securities tendered in the tender offer"
Section 240.14a-12 - Solicitation before furnishing a proxy statement
17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-12 Cited 5 times
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 240.14a-3(a) , a solicitation may be made before furnishing security holders with a proxy statement meeting the requirements of § 240.14a-3(a) if: (1) Each written communication includes: (i) The identity of the participants in the solicitation (as defined in Instruction 3 to Item 4 of Schedule 14A (§ 240.14a-101 ) ) and a description of their direct or indirect interests, by security holdings or otherwise, or a prominent legend in clear, plain language advising
Section 230.425 - Filing of certain prospectuses and communications under Section 230.135 in connection with business combination transactions
17 C.F.R. § 230.425 Cited 2 times
(a) All written communications made in reliance on § 230.165 are prospectuses that must be filed with the Commission under this section on the date of first use. (b) All written communications that contain no more information than that specified in § 230.135 must be filed with the Commission on or before the date of first use except as provided in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. A communication limited to the information specified in § 230.135 will not be deemed an offer in accordance with § 230

Redhawk Holdings Corp., et al v. Schreiber, et al

36 Cited authorities

Holding that a "change of venue under § 1404 generally should be, with respect to state law, but a change of courtrooms"

Holding that the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1404 —which permits the transfer of "any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought "—unambiguously means at the time the lawsuit was filed

Holding that under Utah law, the policy definition of the term "suit" made the insurer's duty to defend dependent on the underlying allegations of liability

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 venue improper unless "significant events or omissions material to the plaintiff's claim . . . occurred in the district in question, even if other material events occurred elsewhere"

Holding venue improper in Eastern District of Pennsylvania when all but one event relevant to contract, trademark, and unfair trade practice claims took place in Michigan

Holding that even though the CBA granted retirees life-time health-care benefits upon retirement, it did not resolve the scope, of those benefits because "the relevant CBA provisions suggest[ed] that the parties contemplated reasonable modifications"

Holding "substantial part" of events giving rise to tort claim occurs in district where plaintiff alleges "harms" were "felt"

Holding that the venue statute "contemplates some cases in which venue will be proper in two or more districts."

Holding venue improper in Northern District of Iowa where plaintiff resided and felt effects of charged trademark violations because neither alleged "passing off" nor any other event having substantial connection to claims occurred there

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

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

Recognizing that transfer is proper to any district or division in which the action could have been brought

Requiring that "[t]he consideration paid to any security holder for securities tendered in the tender offer [be] the highest consideration paid to any other security holder for securities tendered in the tender offer"