28 U.S.C. § 1391(B)

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

• Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.
  481 U.S. 1· U.S.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 504×
• Kletschka v. Driver
  411 F.2d 436· 2d Cir.· 1969-04-22 ·cited 105×
  The court held that material issues of fact exist regarding whether the plaintiff's transfer was disciplinary and thus required a hearing under 38 U.S.C. § 4110, and whether his constitutional due process rights were violated. Summary judgment was reversed in part.
• Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight
  181 F.2d 949· 2d Cir.· 1950-05-03 ·cited 72×
  A district court cannot transfer an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to a district where the defendant cannot be served with process.
• Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt
  722 F.2d 779· D.C. Cir.· 1983-11-29 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over indispensable private defendants and for substantive defects in the claims against the government.
• Adele Halkin v. Helms
  690 F.2d 977· D.C. Cir.· 1982-09-21 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims, upholding the government's assertion of the state secrets privilege and finding that plaintiffs could not prove their case without privileged information.
• Cent. Valley Typographical Union v. McCLATCHY Newspapers
  762 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-23 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a stay pending the NLRB's decision, as the contractual interpretation issue was inextricably bound with a representational issue within the Board's primary jurisdiction. The court also affirmed the transfer o
• Myers v. Am. Dental Ass'n
  695 F.2d 716· 3d Cir.· 1982-12-10 ·cited 35×
  The American Dental Association waived its right to challenge personal jurisdiction by failing to raise it timely, and venue is proper under the Clayton Act. Personal jurisdiction over Dr. Cappuccio is proper due to his purposeful engagement in the Virgin Islands.
• Lamont v. Haig
  590 F.2d 1124· D.C. Cir.· 1978-10-16 ·cited 34×
  Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) applies only to federal officers or employees who held their positions at the time the suit was commenced, not to former officials. Venue under § 1391(b) may lie in a district where a substantial portion of the operative events occurred, but the co
• People OF the State OF Ill. v. City OF Milwaukee
  599 F.2d 151· 7th Cir.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 32×
  The Federal Water Pollution Control Act does not preempt the federal common law of nuisance, nor does it limit the relief available in such actions to the statutory minimums. Compliance with a permit is not a defense.
• Noxell Corp. v. Firehouse NO. 1 Bar-B-Que Rest.
  771 F.2d 521· D.C. Cir.· 1985-08-23 ·cited 31×
  The court held that Noxell's venue arguments were not so indefensible as to warrant attorneys' fees for the defendant under the Lanham Act.
• Anrig v. Ringsby United
  603 F.2d 1319· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 22×
  Dismissal of an entire action for improper venue is too severe without first considering the severance or transfer of claims against non-indispensable parties.
• Sinwell v. Governor Milton Shapp
  536 F.2d 15· 3d Cir.· 1976-05-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis based on improper venue, as venue is not a proper ground for such denial and the court should have considered the statutory venue provisions.
• Tefal v. Prods. Int'l Co.
  529 F.2d 495· 3d Cir.· 1976-01-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding venue in New Jersey and in granting a preliminary injunction based on the likelihood of trademark infringement and irreparable injury.
• Ray v. Sch. Dist. of DeSoto Cnty.
  666 F. Supp. 1524· M.D. Fla.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the exclusion of HIV-positive hemophiliac children from regular classrooms.
• REY v. City OF Fredericktown
  729 F.2d 1171· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the venue transfer was proper and that sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's verdict, denying the plaintiff's claims.
• E. Penn Nicholson for the Est. of Carolee's Combine, Inc. v. First Inv. Co. & Bill Beltzer
  705 F.2d 410· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a transfer of funds from a bankrupt corporation to a creditor, which occurred when the creditor exchanged corporate checks for cashier's checks, constituted a voidable preference under Section 60 of the Bankruptcy Act because the creditor had reasonable cause
• The NEW Alliance Party OF Ala. v. Hand
  933 F.2d 1568· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-24 ·cited 11×
  The court held that Alabama's April 6 deadline for minor parties to submit signature petitions and nominate candidates for the general election violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing a significant burden without a compelling state interest.
• John Walker & Sons, Ltd. v. DeMERT & Dougherty, Inc.
  821 F.2d 399· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that personal jurisdiction was proper over Collection 2000 and Joseph Blasser under Illinois' long-arm statute, and that venue was proper in the Northern District of Illinois, but affirmed the dismissal of Eduardo Blasser and Blasser Brothers for lack of jurisdicti
• Attwell v. LaSALLE Nat'l Bank
  607 F.2d 1157· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction because the defendants lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Georgia.
• Honorable C. William O'Neill v. Honorable Frank J. Battisti
  472 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1972-11-10 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the District Court improvidently issued a temporary restraining order and should have abstained from interfering with state court proceedings, granting a writ of mandamus to vacate the order and dismiss the action for lack of venue.
• Emerson Elec. Co. v. The Black & Decker Mfg. Co.
  606 F.2d 234· 8th Cir.· 1979-09-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the transfer order was appealable, there was no personal jurisdiction over Limited, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in transferring the case.
• Rucker v. Great Dane Petroleum Contractors, Inc.
  343 F. Supp. 3d 1304· M.D. Fla.· 2021-05-17 ·cited 7×
  Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida because the defendant corporation conducted business there, and exercising personal jurisdiction comports with due process and fairness, thus the motion to dismiss or transfer is denied.
• Brotherhood OF Railroad Trainmen and R. E. Carroll v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co.
  367 F.2d 137· 10th Cir.· 1966-09-21 ·cited 6×
  Venue for an unincorporated labor union, for purposes of a civil action not based solely on diversity, lies only in the district where the union resides, which is its principal place of business, not where it is doing business.
• Sharp Elecs. Corp. v. Hayman Cash Register Co.
  655 F.2d 1228· D.C. Cir.· 1981-05-04 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court should have considered transferring the case to a district where venue and jurisdiction are proper, rather than dismissing it outright.
• Burger King Corp. v. Thomas
  755 F. Supp. 1026· S.D. Fla.· 1991-01-28 ·cited 4×
  Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because the breach of contract claim, which is the predominant cause of action, arose there, and the trademark infringement claim is intertwined with it.
• Cameron v. Thornburgh
  983 F.2d 253· D.C. Cir.· 1993-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that venue was improper in the District of Columbia for the Bivens action and that the claims against two federal officials failed to state a claim. The court affirmed dismissal of claims against two officials and transferred the remaining claims to the proper venu
• OYO Hotels, Inc. v. Maingate Worldwide, LLC
  984 F. Supp. 2d 637· M.D. Fla.· 2020-06-03 ·cited 1×
  Venue was improper in the Northern District of Texas because the plaintiff failed to establish that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred there; the case is transferred to the Middle District of Florida.
• Hunter v. Chiles
  944 F. Supp. 914· S.D. Fla.· 1996-10-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Florida Medicaid must cover Augmentative Communication Devices and Services (ACDS) for both adult and child recipients as medically necessary durable medical equipment under the home health care provision or the EPSDT program, and cannot deny coverage based on
• Williams v. Daniels
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-15
  The court granted in part and deferred the motions to dismiss, granting dismissal for the Department of Financial Services based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and transferring the case to the Southern District of Florida.
• Carlton Wilson v. Pryor
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-19
  The court held that the prisoner's civil rights complaint was subject to dismissal due to improper venue, judicial and prosecutorial immunity, and failure to state a claim under Heck v. Humphrey.
• Mirabal v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-17
  The court held that transfer to the Southern District of Florida was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because it is a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses, and the operative facts occurred there.
• Abler v. Atkinson
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-04
  The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida.
• Abler v. Atkinson
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-04
  The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and transferred the case to the Middle District of Florida.
• Suffolk Constr. Co., Inc. v. Shoma Vill. Apts., LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-17
  A forum-selection clause specifying a county permits litigation in either federal or state court within that county, and a corporation can be represented by its licensed in-house counsel.
• Scott v. Satz
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-10-24
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims must be dismissed because the Northern District of Florida is an improper venue and the defendants are immune from suit.
• Nguyen v. Marshall
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-02
  Plaintiff, a federal prisoner, filed a civil action in the District Court for the Northern District of California alleging constitutional and state law violations at two federal correctional facilities in Florida and California. The court transferred the case to the Southern Dist
• Purple Innovation, LLC v. Waykar, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-29
  Purple Innovation, LLC sued Waykar, Inc., American Serleep Inc., and others for trademark infringement based on the sale of allegedly infringing mattresses on online marketplaces, but the Middle District of Florida dismissed the complaint without prejudice for improper venue beca
• Franczak v. I.C. Sys., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-30
  The court held that venue was improper in the Middle District of Florida and granted the defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
• Sagesse v. Dixon
  2025 WL 1923126· N.D. Fla.· 2025-07-29
  The court recommended dismissal of the prisoner's civil rights complaint without prejudice due to failure to truthfully disclose litigation history and improper venue.
• Fernandez v. Fredrickson
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-29
  The court held that the case should be transferred to the Middle District of Florida because venue is proper there and transfer is in the interest of justice and convenience.
• Asbury v. Stout
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-10
  The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants for all of the plaintiff's claims and that venue was improper in the Middle District of Florida.
• Blackwell, Jr. v. Blackwell
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-09
  This is a venue determination case in which the district court transferred a diversity action from the Eastern District of California to the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff failed to establish that California was a proper venue for his claims against a Virginia reside
• Taylor v. Dade Corr. Inst.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-29
  The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint failed to state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and was also likely barred by the statute of limitations.
• McDonald v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-25
  The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint must be dismissed without prejudice because it failed to comply with procedural rules, sought impermissible relief, and contained insufficient allegations.
• Pepe v. Pepe
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-06-16
  Venue is improper in this district, and the plaintiff's claims are frivolous, warranting dismissal rather than transfer.
• Pepe v. Confreda
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-06-12
  The court held that venue was improper and the plaintiff's claims were frivolous, warranting dismissal rather than transfer.
• Haner v. Homminga
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-05-16
  The court recommended transferring the case to the District of Arizona because it is a more convenient forum, as a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred there and the Northern District of Florida lacks personal jurisdiction over the City of Phoenix.
• Malhotra v. Kumar
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-12-05
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and venue because the complaint did not properly allege the defendants' citizenship and failed to satisfy venue requirements.
• Lamoureux v. State
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-11-14
  The court recommended transferring the case to the Southern District of Florida because venue was improper in the Northern District.
• Hrejn v. Centurion Med. Grp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-10-18
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff's failure to fully and truthfully disclose prior and ongoing litigation history, after being warned, renders the complaint malicious and warrants dismissal without prejudice.