Section 1404 - Change of venue

1,000+ Citing briefs

  1. Turnage v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.

    MOTION to Transfer Case , Dismiss or Stay Action Pursuant to First-to-File Rule and/or 28 U.S.C. 1404

    Filed May 8, 2013

    I have received and reviewed data provided to me by ODFL setting forth the number of full-time P&D drivers that currently work or last worked for ODFL at each of its Case4:13-cv-01409-PJH Document17 Filed05/08/13 Page33 of 35 47790205.4 24 DEFENDANT OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.’S MOTION TO TRANSFER, DISMISS OR STAY ACTION PURSUANT TO FIRST-TO-FILE RULE AND/OR 28 U.S.C. § 1404 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California-based service center locations between January 22, 2009 and January 22, 2013. Based on that data, I identified the federal judicial district that encompasses each of ODFL’s California- based service center locations and determined the number of full-time P&D drivers that currently work or last worked for ODFL within each respective district during that time period to be as follows: Service Center P&D Drivers Federal Judicial District Bakersfield 5 Eastern Chico 8 Eastern Fresno 13 Eastern Long Beach 39 Central Los Angeles 49 Central Modesto 1 Eastern Orange 25 Central Oxnard 10 Central Rialto 81 Central Sacramento 20 Eastern San Diego 20 Southern San Francisco 36 Northern San Jose 19 Northern Stockton 15 Eastern I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

  2. Klecher v. Conmed Corporation

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to FRCP 12

    Filed May 22, 2017

    My business address is Park Tower, Suite 1500, 695 Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. On May 22, 2017, I served the following document(s): DECLARATION OF DANIEL S. JONAS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(B)6); MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(B)(1), OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) by placing (the original) (a true copy thereof) in a sealed envelope addressed as stated on the attached service list. Jay R. Strauss David C. Winton WINTON STRAUSS LAW GROUP, P.C. 2 Ranch Drive Novato, CA 94945 Telephone: (415) 265-5555 Facsimile: (415) 265-985-2112 jrs@wintonstrauss.com dcw@wintonstrauss.

  3. Russ McCullough et al v. World Wrestling Entertainment Inc

    OPPOSITION to MOTION to Transfer Case to U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut 16

    Filed June 22, 2015

    Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to transfer this action to the District of Connecticut should be denied. Case 2:15-cv-02662-AB-JEM Document 21 Filed 06/22/15 Page 25 of 26 Page ID #:376 22 2:15-cv-02662-AB-JEM OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated this June 22, 2015 AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP /s/ Jonas P. Mann Jonas P. Mann jmann@audetlaw.com 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415.568.

  4. Gibson et al v. United States Navy et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Transfer Case

    Filed April 5, 2007

    Defendants have not shown that transfer is in the interests of justice or that any attorney would bring this case here. Instead, the unique circumstances of this District’s law would subject any attorney who brought this case to sanctions under Rule 11 and the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct, and subject the attorney to malpractice. Consequently, this is not a case that could be brought in this District and the transfer was improper because it did not meet § 1404(a)’s criteria. Accordingly, the case should be transferred back to the Northern District of Florida.

  5. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc. v. CardioCom, LLC et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed May 22, 2014

    Conversely, there is no relation to Texas. Cardiocom respectfully requests that the Court deny Bosch’s motion to transfer. Dated: May 22, 2014 Respectfully submitted, MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. /s/ Daniel W. McDonald Daniel W. McDonald Attorneys for Defendant CARDIOCOM, LLC Case3:14-cv-01575-EMC Document101 Filed05/22/14 Page20 of 21 CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01575-EMC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 E-FILING ATTESTATION I, Timothy G. Majors, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Daniel W. McDonald, signer, has concurred in this filing.

  6. Personal Audio, LLC v. Togi Entertainment, Inc.

    MOTION to Change Venue

    Filed August 28, 2013

    I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071. On August 28, 2013, I caused the following documents to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a), which will send notification of such filings to all known counsel of record who have consented to electronic service per Local Rule CV-5: DEFENDANT HOWSTUFFWORKS’S MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 28, 2013, at Los Angeles, California.

  7. Eric Norwood v. Children and Youth Services Inc. et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Transfer Case to District Court of Utah 8 , MOTION to Transfer Case PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO SEC. 1404

    Filed April 5, 2011

    Conclusion Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny the Motion to Transfer Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and hold that California is the proper venue to bring this suit. Case 2:10-cv-07944-GAF-MAN Document 13 Filed 04/05/11 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:157 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) - 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: April 4, 2011 /s/Michele M. Betti . Michele M. Betti, Esq.

  8. West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Cardionet, Inc. et al

    RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for Change Venue Notice of Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer the Action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sec. 1404

    Filed May 28, 2010

    Therefore the Court should deny Defendants’ Motion to Transfer. DATED: May 28, 2010 SCOTT+SCOTT LLP /s/Arthur L. Shingler III______________ ARTHUR L. SHINGLER III (181719) MARY K. BLASY (211262) 600 B Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/233-4565 619/233-0508 (fax) -and- DAVID R. SCOTT 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Telephone: 860/537-3818 860/537-4432 (fax) Amber L. Eck ZELDES & HAEGGQUIST, LLP 625 Broadway, Suite 906 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/434-0024 619/342-7878 (fax) Counsel for Plaintiff Case 3:10-cv-00711-L -NLS Document 31 Filed 05/28/10 Page 21 of 22 16 Civil Action No.: 3:10-cv-00711-L-NLS PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO TRANSFER THE ACTION TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 28, 2010 I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted on the Electronic Mail Notice List, and I hereby certify that I caused the foregoing document or paper to be mailed via the United States Postal Service to the non-CM/ECF participants indicated on the Manual Notice List. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

  9. SmithKline Beecham Corporation, dba GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories

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

    Filed March 25, 2008

    See Reynolds, 2007 WL 484782, at *6 (holding that defendants could not meet burden where they simply "point[ed] out" that none of the potential witnesses resided in the Northern District of California). Case 4:07-cv-05702-CW Document 74 Filed 03/25/2008 Page 19 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1799042 - 16 - GLAXOSMITHKLINE'S OPPOSITION TO ABBOTT LABORATORIES' MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) CASE NO. C-07-5702 CW IV.

  10. Rafton v. Rydex Series Funds et al

    MOTION to Transfer Case TO DISTRICT OF MARYLAND PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1404

    Filed May 21, 2010

    CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, this case should be transferred to the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Case3:10-cv-01171-CRB Document18 Filed05/21/10 Page15 of 16 DECHERT LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAN FR AN C I SC O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 10CV1171 Dated: May 21, 2010 DECHERT LLP MATTHEW L. LARRABEE DAVID A. KOTLER MURIEL M. KOROL By: /S/ MATTHEW L. LARRABEE One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2300 San Francisco, California 94111-3513 Telephone: 415.262.