28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) (Transfer Of Venue)

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

• In re Josephson
  218 F.2d 174· 1st Cir.· 1954-12-23 ·cited 199×
  The court held that it has the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to review a district court's order transferring a case to another district, in aid of its potential appellate jurisdiction, but will not routinely review such orders for abuse of discretion.
• Roofing & Sheet Metal Servs., Inc. v. LA Quinta Motor Inns, Inc.
  689 F.2d 982· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 146×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the transfer order from another circuit, but vacated the summary judgment because the district court erred in applying Alabama law when Arkansas choice of law rules should have governed.
• Davis v. Hill Eng'g, Inc.
  549 F.2d 314· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-23 ·cited 120×
• Yoder Bros., Inc. v. California-Florida Plant Corp.
  537 F.2d 1347· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-07 ·cited 104×
  The court held that the determination of the relevant market for monopolization and attempted monopolization issues should have been decided by a jury, not as a matter of law.
• British Airways Bd. v. The Boeing Co.
  585 F.2d 946· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-08 ·cited 94×
  The court held that summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the cause of the aircraft crash, and the plaintiff also failed to properly pursue discovery befo
• Morris v. SSE, Inc.
  843 F.2d 489· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-27 ·cited 90×
• Sargent v. Genesco, Inc.
  492 F.2d 750· 5th Cir.· 1974-04-11 ·cited 90×
• Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. Rodney
  186 F.2d 111· 3d Cir.· 1950-12-06 ·cited 80×
  A district court has the power under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer a civil action to another district where it might have been brought, even if venue would be improper for some defendants, provided the defendants consent to the transfer.
• Starnes v. Honorable Matthew F. McGUIRE
  512 F.2d 918· D.C. Cir.· 1974-11-08 ·cited 79×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review a transfer order after the case file was physically transferred to the transferee court, and that the transfer of Small's case to the District of Kansas was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) given the factual issues involve
• All States Freight, Inc. v. Modarelli
  196 F.2d 1010· 3d Cir.· 1952-05-08 ·cited 78×
  The court held that mandamus is not an appropriate remedy to review a district court's decision on a motion to transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• 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.
• Rapp v. Honorable Francis L. VAN Dusen
  350 F.2d 806· 3d Cir.· 1965-08-10 ·cited 67×
  The majority held that the respondent judge erred in denying a recusal request, even without a statutory violation, to avoid the appearance of partiality.
• Chicago v. Honorable Michael L. Igoe
  220 F.2d 299· 7th Cir.· 1955-02-16 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the district judge's repeated denial of a transfer motion constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting mandamus.
• The State OF Ala. v. Blue Bird Body Co., Inc.
  573 F.2d 309· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-22 ·cited 60×
  The court held that certifying a nationwide class for an antitrust case was inappropriate because the proof of conspiracy and impact may not be common to all class members, and the proposed bifurcation and transfer plan raises significant Seventh Amendment concerns regarding sepa
• Factors ETC., Inc. v. PRO Arts, Inc.
  579 F.2d 215· 2d Cir.· 1978-06-27 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the right of publicity for Elvis Presley survived his death and was validly transferred to Factors, and that Pro Arts' memorial poster was not privileged as a newsworthy event.
• Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage
  611 F.2d 270· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-20 ·cited 54×
  The court held that venue was proper in the Central District of California because Savage's telephone calls into the district were an integral part of the alleged fraudulent scheme. The court also held that Savage furnished commodity trading advice to more than fifteen persons, t
• Stroh Container Co. formerly known as Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Delphi Indus., Inc.
  783 F.2d 743· 8th Cir.· 1986-02-12 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award and its grant of post-award prejudgment interest, finding no manifest disregard of law or procedural error.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Citizens Bank & Tr. Co. OF Park Ridge
  592 F.2d 364· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-02 ·cited 52×
  The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) comprehensively defines the tort liability of federal agencies like the FDIC, and sue-and-be-sued clauses do not permit suits for torts excepted from the FTCA's coverage.
• Dove v. Codesco
  569 F.2d 807· 4th Cir.· 1978-01-18 ·cited 51×
  The court held that dismissal of a case for an attorney's failure to attend a pretrial conference, without a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff, is an abuse of discretion and that lesser sanctions should be imposed.
• The Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.
  810 F.2d 1066· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-23 ·cited 49×
  The court should recognize state contract law regarding forum selection clauses in diversity cases, rather than mischaracterizing the issue as solely a federal venue matter.
• Marve A. Dubin v. United States
  380 F.2d 813· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-25 ·cited 49×
  A transfer is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to any district where the case could have been brought if the transferor court finds it is in the interest of justice, even without personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
• In re Ricoh Corp.
  870 F.2d 570· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-03 ·cited 48×
  A valid and reasonable forum selection clause should be given controlling weight in a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and the burden shifts to the party opposing the transfer to show the contractual forum is sufficiently inconvenient.
• Wiren v. Laws
  194 F.2d 873· D.C. Cir.· 1951-12-27 ·cited 48×
  An order of transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) may be reviewed by mandamus if the grounds for transfer are insufficient. The trial court's reasoning for transfer was erroneous.
• Windmere Corp. v. Remington Prods., Inc.
  617 F. Supp. 8· S.D. Fla.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 46×
  The court granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue, finding that Connecticut was a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
• Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. Sweetheart Plastics, Inc.
  436 F.2d 1180· 7th Cir.· 1971-01-21 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that both patents at issue were valid and infringed, and that the refusal to retransfer the declaratory judgment action was proper.
• Allen v. Scribner
  812 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish essential elements of his claims for demotion and harassment, thus summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate.
• Hayman Cash Register Co. v. Honorable H. Lee Sarokin
  669 F.2d 162· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 45×
  A transferee court cannot independently re-examine whether an action could have been brought in its district if the transferor court already decided that issue; the transferor court's decision becomes the law of the case.
• Meterlogic, Inc. v. Copier Solutions, Inc.
  185 F. Supp. 2d 1292· S.D. Fla.· 2002-01-15 ·cited 44×
  The court held that transfer of the case to the Western District of Missouri is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
• Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
  795 F.2d 601· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider the dismissal of the plaintiff's action, as the attorneys' conduct did not constitute excusable neglect or exceptional circumstances justifying relief under Rule 60(b), and the
• Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co. & Walter C. Madsen for Heritage Tr. Co.
  758 F.2d 409· 9th Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 44×
  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, finding the appeal frivolous and the prior litigation and procedural rulings to be res judicata. The court also upheld the denial of discovery and class certification due to counsel's incompetence.
• United States ex rel. Stanley Meadows v. State OF NEW York & Warden of the United States Penitentiary
  426 F.2d 1176· 2d Cir.· 1970-05-05 ·cited 44×
  The dissenting judge held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to transfer the habeas corpus petition to New York because the prisoner was incarcerated in Georgia, and the petition could only be brought in the district of incarceration.
• Cont'l Grain Co. v. Fed. Barge Lines, Inc.
  268 F.2d 240· 5th Cir.· 1959-06-30 ·cited 43×
  An in rem admiralty proceeding may be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to a district where the res is not located, provided the claimant voluntarily consents to the transfer.
• Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Davis. in re Atl. Coast Line R. Co.
  185 F.2d 766· 5th Cir.· 1950-11-16 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by retransferring the case, as the grounds for retransfer were insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• LOU v. Belzberg
  834 F.2d 730· 9th Cir.· 1987-11-12 ·cited 42×
  State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over RICO claims, and the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state proceedings except in very limited circumstances.
• Swindell-Dressler Corp. v. Honorable Edward Dumbauld
  308 F.2d 267· 3d Cir.· 1962-09-25 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court lost jurisdiction by transferring a case without affording the aggrieved party notice and an opportunity to be heard, violating due process.
• S. A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea RIO Grandense (Varig Airlines) v. The Boeing Co.
  641 F.2d 746· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the exculpatory clause, governed by Washington law, was valid and enforceable, barring claims for post-delivery negligence, violation of law, fraud, and strict liability.
• Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co. v. The Honorable Willis W. Ritter
  371 F.2d 145· 10th Cir.· 1967-01-03 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a motion to transfer venue and in overruling a motion to quash service of summons.
• Mason v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs.
  146 F. Supp. 2d 1355· S.D. Fla.· 2001-06-28 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the defendants failed to meet their burden to show that the balance of conveniences strongly favored transfer, and thus denied the motion to transfer venue.
• Codex Corp. & Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Milgo Elec. Corp. & Int'l Commc'ns Corp.
  553 F.2d 735· 1st Cir.· 1977-04-29 ·cited 39×
  The court held that a manufacturer's declaratory judgment action in its home forum should generally take precedence over a customer's infringement suit in a jurisdiction where the manufacturer could not be sued.
• Meir Kahane v. Carlson
  527 F.2d 492· 2d Cir.· 1975-11-26 ·cited 38×
  The court held that venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York because the prisoner's continuing probation obligations made that district his residence for venue purposes, and that prison authorities must provide a diet sufficient to sustain the prisoner without violati
• Nat'l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler
  287 F.2d 43· 2d Cir.· 1961-02-08 ·cited 38×
  The court held that a district court abused its discretion by enjoining proceedings in another district after the first court had already considered and denied motions regarding venue and transfer.
• Nascone v. Spudnuts, Inc.
  735 F.2d 763· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 37×
  The court held that a motion to transfer a federal action to another federal court is distinguishable from a motion to dismiss in favor of a foreign court.
• Garner v. Wolfinbarger
  433 F.2d 117· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-31 ·cited 36×
  Interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is inappropriate for reviewing a district court's discretionary transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• Wyndham Assocs. v. Bintliff
  398 F.2d 614· 2d Cir.· 1968-06-26 ·cited 36×
  A district court may sever claims against certain defendants to allow transfer of the action against remaining defendants to a more convenient forum, even if venue would not be proper in the transferee district for the severed defendants.
• 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.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Savoy Indus., Inc.
  587 F.2d 1149· D.C. Cir.· 1978-07-14 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to transfer the case, and that the district court's findings of securities law violations were not clearly erroneous.
• Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Honorable Stanley A. Weigel
  426 F.2d 1356· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-26 ·cited 34×
  The court held that issues not raised in the lower court are generally not considered on appeal, and the district court's transfer decision was within its discretion.
• Clayton v. Honorable Wilson Warlick
  232 F.2d 699· 4th Cir.· 1956-04-09 ·cited 34×
  An application for a writ of mandamus or prohibition to review an interlocutory order transferring a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) will be denied, as such orders are not appealable and extraordinary writs cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.
• Headrick v. Atchison
  182 F.2d 305· 10th Cir.· 1950-05-08 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action on forum non conveniens grounds without sufficient proof, and that a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) would not necessarily be futile due to the statute of limitations.
• Del Monte Fresh Produce Co. v. Dole Food Co., Inc.
  136 F. Supp. 2d 1271· S.D. Fla.· 2001-02-22 ·cited 33×
  The court denied defendants' motions to dismiss based on forum non conveniens and transfer of venue, but granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.