28 U.S.C. § 1391

39 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Ashe v. McNAMARA
  355 F.2d 277· 1st Cir.· 1965-12-14 ·cited 90×
  A district court has jurisdiction to review administrative action under 10 U.S.C. § 1552, compelling correction of a military discharge if the original conviction was unconstitutional.
• Childs v. United States Bd. OF Parole
  511 F.2d 1270· D.C. Cir.· 1974-12-19 ·cited 55×
  The court held that parole applicants are entitled to a brief statement of the grounds for denial under the Administrative Procedure Act, rather than requiring a full constitutional due process analysis.
• Jaftex Corp. v. Randolph Mills, Inc.
  282 F.2d 508· 2d Cir.· 1960-08-22 ·cited 40×
  The court held that federal courts sitting in a state cannot exercise jurisdiction over a foreign corporation unless the state has provided for such jurisdiction, absent specific federal statutory provision.
• Whittaker Corp. v. United Aircraft Corp.
  482 F.2d 1079· 1st Cir.· 1973-07-23 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a foreign corporation's extensive contacts, including supplying specifications and supervising performance within Massachusetts, established sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction, but passive purchasers with limited contacts did not.
• Paterson v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  644 F.2d 521· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) is the exclusive remedy for age discrimination claims by federal employees, but the plaintiff should have an opportunity to prove jurisdiction regarding the ADEA claim.
• Barber-Greene Co. v. Blaw-Knox Co. & All Purpose Spreader Co.
  239 F.2d 774· 6th Cir.· 1957-01-11 ·cited 22×
  Venue is proper in the district where a corporation is licensed to do business, and the first-filed action is determined by the filing date, not service date.
• Johnson v. Mueller
  415 F.2d 354· 4th Cir.· 1969-08-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaints for lack of jurisdiction without considering whether they stated a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
• Adolph Caso v. Lafayette Radio Elecs. Corp.
  370 F.2d 707· 1st Cir.· 1966-12-27 ·cited 20×
  A federal court in a diversity case must apply state law to determine if a foreign corporation is "doing business" for personal jurisdiction, and "mere solicitation" is insufficient if the cause of action is unrelated to the solicitation activities in the state.
• McCOY v. Siler
  205 F.2d 498· 3d Cir.· 1953-06-10 ·cited 18×
  A nonresident motorist does not waive the federal venue privilege by driving in a state that provides for service on a public officer, as this is not a true consent to suit.
• Piedmont Label Co. v. SUN Garden Packing Co.
  598 F.2d 491· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-05 ·cited 12×
  The court agrees that the district court's reliance on Giusti v. Pyrotechnic Industries was undercut by subsequent case law.
• Am. Carpet Mills v. The Gunny Corp.
  649 F.2d 1056· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that venue was proper in the Southern District of Georgia because it was the place of performance and that the jury's award of cover damages was supported by sufficient evidence.
• Joseph v. Blair
  482 F.2d 575· 4th Cir.· 1973-07-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine does not apply when no state criminal or civil proceedings are pending against the plaintiffs. It also held that a prior Supreme Court dismissal for want of a substantial federal question does not preclude federal court consider
• Miller v. Berman
  289 F. Supp. 2d 1327· M.D. Fla.· 2003-07-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because their contacts with Florida were insufficient to satisfy the long-arm statute and due process requirements, and venue was improper.
• Burger King Corp. v. Hall
  770 F. Supp. 633· S.D. Fla.· 1991-05-21 ·cited 6×
  A terminated franchisee's continued unauthorized use of the franchisor's trademarks constitutes infringement and unfair competition, and the franchisee cannot use wrongful termination as a defense to avoid injunctive relief.
• Yarn Indus., Inc. v. Krupp Int'l, Inc.
  736 F.2d 125· 4th Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that collateral estoppel did not bar Yarn from litigating the meaning and enforceability of the choice-of-forum clause, and that the parol evidence rule did not bar evidence of mutual mistake regarding the clause's intent.
• Whittington v. Milby
  928 F.2d 188· 6th Cir.· 1991-03-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was timely due to the district court's failure to comply with the separate document rule for its initial order, and affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claim on grounds other than the statute of limitations, while vacating the dismissal o
• Reinauer v. United Airlines, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-17 ·cited 1×
  The court held that venue was improper in the Middle District of Florida for Title VII claims and granted the motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois.
• Milligan Elec. Co. v. Hudson Constr. Co.
  886 F. Supp. 845· N.D. Fla.· 1995-05-12 ·cited 1×
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Hudson Construction Co. and that venue was improper, thus transferring the case to the Northern District of Georgia.
• Aron Berlin v. Eggnatz
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-07
  The court held that transfer to the Southern District of Florida is appropriate for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice.
• Gori v. Sharma
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-22
  The court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, finding they demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their Florida Unauthorized Publication Act claim, a likelihood of irreparable injury, that the equities weighed in their favor, and tha
• Doe v. Choice Hotels Int'l. Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-28
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over GP4 because the plaintiff's claims did not arise out of or relate to GP4's contacts with Maryland, and therefore transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida.
• Naples Cheer Acad. Inc v. Naples Element All Stars, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-24
  The court granted in part Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its trade secret misappropriation claims under the DTSA.
• Campbell v. Gaudin
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-10-04
  The court recommended dismissal of the prisoner's complaint without prejudice because it was frivolous, malicious due to failure to disclose litigation history, and the plaintiff was a 'three-striker' barred from proceeding in forma pauperis.
• Burchette v. Millan
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-06-26
  The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of New York and transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida.
• Emrit v. Combs
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-03
  The court held that the plaintiff's notice of appeal was procedurally improper and that venue was not established in the Middle District of Tennessee, thus the case would be transferred.
• Concilio Mision Cristiana Fuente de Agua Viva, Inc. v. Ortiz-Hernandez
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-01-29
  The court held that transfer of the case to the Southern District of Florida was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant was bound by the forum-selection clause in the 1999 contract, and the convenience of parties and witnesses, along with other f
• Pratt Corrugated Holdings, Inc. v. Porter Pizza Box of Ohio, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-11
  The court granted the defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida, finding it to be a proper and more convenient forum.
• Rodriguez v. Imperial Brands PLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-31
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's finding that venue was improper as to Defendant Habanos, but remanded the case to consider whether other defendants waived the venue defense.
• Simpson v. The J.G. Wentworth Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-01-19
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Florida.
• C.T. v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-12-30
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal, finding that the issue of whether the TVPRA authorizes nationwide service of process did not meet the criteria for interlocutory appeal.
• Atlas Apts. Acquisitions, LLC v. Stifel Nicolaus & Co. Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-11-18
  The court granted the motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Illinois, finding that the first-filed rule and the convenience factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 favored transfer.
• Green v. Duffy
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-08-10
  The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and transferred the case to the Northern District of Georgia.
• Gamble v. Kirkendall
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-05-11
  The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to transfer the case because venue was not appropriate in the District of South Carolina.
• Lighting P'rs Jax, Inc. v. SPS Commerce, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-02-17
  A mandatory forum-selection clause in a contract is enforceable through a motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and such clauses are presumptively valid unless a strong showing of unfairness is made.
• Hna LH Od, LLC v. Local House Int'l, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-09-29
  The court held that a forum-selection clause in the Hotel Management Agreement (HMA) applies to the plaintiff's claims, including those arising from post-termination conduct, because the conduct relates to the enforcement of rights established by the HMA.
• Adam J. Rubinstein, M.D., P.A. v. Ourian, M.D.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-11-10
  The court held that it has personal jurisdiction over the defendants under Florida's long-arm statute and that venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida, denying the motion to dismiss and transfer.
• Miracle Moringa Direct Inc. v. EyeFive, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-26
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant and venue was improper in the district, warranting dismissal and transfer.
• EMC Mortg. LLC v. Am. Bancshares Mortg. LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-01-02
  The court held that the Northern District of Texas was an improper venue and, alternatively, that the Southern District of Florida was a more convenient venue, warranting a transfer.
• Arevalo-Franco v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  889 F.2d 589· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-05
  The court held that an alien may file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) complaint in the district court of the district where they reside, and the district court has jurisdiction to consider attorney's fees.