§Why CasetextPricing

SmithKline Beecham Corporation, dba GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories

Memorandum in Opposition re MOTION to Transfer Case PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404

10 Cited authorities

  1. Van Dusen v. Barrack

    376 U.S. 612 (1964)   Cited 4,627 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"

  2. Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen

    141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,149 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that personal jurisdiction existed where “[t]he brunt of the harm ... was felt in California,” and the defendant “knew Panavision would likely suffer harm there because, although at all relevant times Panavision was a Delaware limited partnership, its principal place of business was in California”

  3. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.

    805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 1,349 times
    Holding that moving party must make strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting Plaintiff's choice of forum

  4. A. J. Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court

    503 F.2d 384 (9th Cir. 1974)   Cited 171 times
    Holding district court, in transferring action, properly relied on pendency of related action in transferee district, irrespective of whether actions could be consolidated

  5. 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

  6. Bratton v. Schering-Plough Corporation

    No. CV 07-0653-PHX-JAT (D. Ariz. Jul. 12, 2007)   Cited 13 times
    Finding it appropriate to transfer venue to the "center of discovery" in a nationwide class action

  7. Silverlit Toys Manufactory, Ltd. v. Absolute Toy Mktg.

    No. C 06-7966 CW (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that when a corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction in the forum state, an employee who is the moving, active, conscious force behind infringing activity committed by the corporation in the forum is subject to personal jurisdiction

  8. Reynolds v. Fortis Benefits Insurance Company

    No. C 06-06216 SI (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2007)   Cited 6 times
    Applying like standards to claim brought under 29 U.S.C. § 1132

  9. U.S. v. Approximately $15,630.00 in U.S. Currency

    NO. CIV. 07-0452 FCD KJM (E.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2007)

    NO. CIV. 07-0452 FCD KJM. June 25, 2007 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FRANK DAMRELL JR., District Judge This matter is before the court on claimants Jawid Wahidi ("Jawid"), LMS International, Inc. ("LMS"), Sadiq Wahidi ("Sadiq"), and LA International, Inc.'s ("LA Int'l") motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Claimants do not challenge the propriety of venue in the Eastern District of California, but argue that the Central District of California is the more appropriate forum. Plaintiff

  10. 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