28 Cited authorities

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,868 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.
Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall
466 U.S. 408 (1984) Cited 9,282 times 26 Legal Analyses
Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,636 times 109 Legal Analyses
Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )
In re Volkswagen of Am.
545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,589 times 13 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 1,375 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 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
Johnston v. Multidata
523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 614 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant did not "ha[ve] a general business presence in [Texas] based on the residence of two employees . . . [who] work[ed] from home and report[ed] to supervisors located in Toronto, Canada" because "[w]hile their presence [was] certainly a regular contact with Texas, it [was] not substantial enough to create a general business presence in Texas"
Wilson v. Belin
20 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 950 times
Holding that communication into the forum state was not purposefully directed into the state
Stuart v. Spademan
772 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1985) Cited 990 times
Holding that the nonresident defendant did not intend to avail himself of the laws of the forum when he contracted with several Texas residents, sent letters to Texas, shipped products to Texas, included a Texas law provision in the contract, and marketed his product in Texas
McFadin v. Gerber
587 F.3d 753 (5th Cir. 2009) Cited 443 times
Holding that "the actions of an agent may establish minimum contacts over a principal" but requiring the plaintiff to show an agency relationship
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 347,142 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 28,457 times 185 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 27,948 times 197 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 17.041 - Definition
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.041 Cited 153 times
Defining "nonresident" by a nonexclusive list that includes other business organizations but does not expressly mention LLCs

Thermo-Ply, Inc. v. The Ohio Willow Wood Company et al

28 Cited authorities

Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

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 communication into the forum state was not purposefully directed into the state

Holding that the nonresident defendant did not intend to avail himself of the laws of the forum when he contracted with several Texas residents, sent letters to Texas, shipped products to Texas, included a Texas law provision in the contract, and marketed his product in Texas

Holding that "the actions of an agent may establish minimum contacts over a principal" but requiring the plaintiff to show an agency relationship

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

Defining "nonresident" by a nonexclusive list that includes other business organizations but does not expressly mention LLCs