Saferstein v. Paul, Mardinly, Durham

3 Citing briefs

  1. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory v. Ropes & Gray LLP et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed March 23, 2010

    And even if venue were proper over this claim, the Court should still dismiss it, given that the Court lacks independent subject matter jurisdiction over this pendant claim (because it does not implicate the substantive questions of federal patent law that confer jurisdiction over the legal malpractice claim). See Saferstein, 927 F. Supp. 731, 737 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (transferring a claim over which venue was proper where venue was improper as to the remaining claims, including malpractice, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty). II.

  2. Beeney v. Insightec, Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 16 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document

    Filed April 15, 2014

    I. VENUE IS PROPER IN THIS COURT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) AND THE FLSA BECAUSE NEW YORK CITY IS THE LOCUS OF A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE EVENTS UNDERLYING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS The general federal venue statute provides, in pertinent part, that venue is proper in a judicial district in which “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” even if other material events occurred elsewhere. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2); Saferstein v. Paul, Mardinly, Durham, James, 927 F. Supp. 731, 735–36 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Hall v. S. Orange, 89 F. Supp. 2d 488, 493 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Litton v. Avomex, Inc., 08 CV 1340 (NAM)(DRH), 2010 WL 160121, at *10 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2010). A claim of violation of FLSA “may be maintained against any employer . . . in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction.”

  3. Tracie Thomas v. Taco Bell Corporation et al

    RESPONSE IN SUPPORT of MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction 82 -- DEFENDANT TACO BELL CORP.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT CHICAGO ASSOCIATIONS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT --

    Filed October 4, 2010

    Taco Bell should be, at the very least, given notice and the opportunity to be heard on a fully-noticed motion before this Court considers transferring this case on venue grounds. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (venue may be transferred sua sponte “so long as the parties are first given the opportunity to present their views on the issue”); Saferstein v. Paul, Mardinly, Durham, James, Flandreau, and Rodger, P.C., 927 F. Supp. 731, 737 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“[P]arties should be provided notice and an opportunity to be heard when transfer is proposed sua sponte by the Court.”). But Taco Bell has not received notice at all.