§Why CasetextPricing

United States of America v. Pomerantz

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND/OR MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

12 Cited authorities

  1. Cheek v. United States

    498 U.S. 192 (1991)   Cited 1,075 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant in a criminal tax case can assert a defense of ignorance or misunderstanding of the tax law, leading to "a good-faith belief that he was not violating any of the provisions of the tax laws"

  2. United States v. Boyle

    469 U.S. 241 (1985)   Cited 979 times   24 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a client could be penalized for counsel's tardy filing of a tax return

  3. Mitrano v. Hawes

    377 F.3d 402 (4th Cir. 2004)   Cited 383 times
    Holding that where no evidentiary hearing is held, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that venue is proper

  4. Sucampo v. Astellas Pharma

    471 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2006)   Cited 308 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a forum-selection clause may be enforced “under Rule 12(b) as a motion to dismiss on the basis of improper venue”

  5. U.S. v. Sturman

    951 F.2d 1466 (6th Cir. 1991)   Cited 108 times
    Holding that the intent element of a Klein conspiracy was adequately alleged where the defendant "set up a complex system of foreign and domestic organizations, transactions among the corporations, and foreign bank accounts" that "prevent[ed] the IRS from performing its auditing and assessment functions"

  6. Original Creatine Patent Co. v. Met-Rx USA, Inc.

    387 F. Supp. 2d 564 (E.D. Va. 2005)   Cited 25 times
    Finding four percent of defendant's sales in Virginia did not create sufficient connection with Virginia for purpose of motion to transfer venue

  7. Rice Contracting Corporation v. Callas Contractors

    1:08cv1163 (LMB/TRJ) (E.D. Va. Jan. 2, 2009)   Cited 5 times

    1:08cv1163 (LMB/TRJ). January 2, 2009 MEMORANDUM OPINION LEONIE BRINKEMA, District Judge I. Background Plaintiff Rice Contracting Company ("Rice"), a subcontractor, has sued the defendants, Callas Contractors, Inc. ("Callas"), a general contractor, and Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford"), Callas' surety, alleging breach of contract and claims under Virginia's "Little Miller Act," Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-4337 et seq. The defendants have moved to dismiss based on a forum selection clause in the

  8. 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 346,675 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

  9. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,422 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

  10. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 27,895 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

  11. Section 5314 - Records and reports on foreign financial agency transactions

    31 U.S.C. § 5314   Cited 204 times   37 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the Treasury to set through regulation "the magnitude of transactions subject to a requirement or a regulation under" the Act

  12. Section 5321 - Civil penalties

    31 U.S.C. § 5321   Cited 187 times   73 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the imposition of a civil penalty not to exceed $100,000 or the value of the bank account at the time of the violation, whichever is greater, for willful violations