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

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

• The Plum Tree, Inc. v. Stockment
  488 F.2d 754· 3d Cir.· 1973-11-30 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court's order transferring the action was improper because it was made without sufficient supporting evidence and without a hearing or opportunity for argument.
• George E. Farrell de bonis non of the Estate of Wyand F. Doerner, Jr. v. The Honorable Inzer B. Wyatt
  408 F.2d 662· 2d Cir.· 1969-03-18 ·cited 31×
  A district court has the power to transfer an action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) even if the plaintiffs could not have initially brought suit in the transferee district due to state law capacity restrictions, provided venue and jurisdiction were proper.
• Coffey v. Works
  796 F.2d 217· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motion to transfer venue, as the transferee court would have been bound to apply the transferor's (Indiana) law, making the transfer futile.
• Mobil Tankers Co. v. Mene Grande OIL Co.
  363 F.2d 611· 3d Cir.· 1966-07-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as the presence of U.S. citizen parties and the availability of superior procedural remedies in admiralty weighed against dismissal.
• Ex parte Blaski
  245 F.2d 737· 5th Cir.· 1957-06-14 ·cited 30×
  A district court has the power to transfer a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to a district where the action might have been brought, even if the defendants could not have been served with process in that district, provided the defendants consent to the transfer.
• Gaynell Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co.
  630 F.2d 149· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-24 ·cited 29×
  A party moving for transfer under § 1404(a) is not automatically estopped from later asserting forum non conveniens, but the prior transfer motion must be weighed against dismissal. The district court erred in dismissing the action based on insufficient showing of witness inconve
• Martin v. Nelson Stokes t/a Nelson Stokes Garage and Allen R. Lisenby
  623 F.2d 469· 6th Cir.· 1980-06-19 ·cited 29×
  The choice of state law in a transferred diversity action depends on the nature of the transfer: a § 1404(a) transfer applies the transferor court's law, while a § 1406(a) transfer applies the transferee court's law.
• Minichiello v. Rosenberg
  410 F.2d 106· 2d Cir.· 1968-12-12 ·cited 28×
  The court's opinion, as clarified by this concurrence, refers only to the situation where plaintiffs are New York residents when utilizing the Seider procedure.
• The Exch. Nat'l Bank OF Olean v. Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  341 F.2d 673· 2d Cir.· 1965-02-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that invoices representing non-existent shipments, while fraudulent, do not constitute "counterfeit" documents under the terms of the insurance bond.
• In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig. (Ten cases) The State OF Alaska v. Boise Cascade Corp.
  685 F.2d 810· 3d Cir.· 1982-07-16 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its scheduling, transfer of venue, evidentiary rulings, or discovery sanctions, and therefore affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the defendants.
• Solomon v. Cont'l Am. Life Ins. Co.
  472 F.2d 1043· 3d Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a district court's order transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) will not be disturbed by writ of mandamus unless the court exceeded its authority or acted outside its jurisdiction, and the conditions imposed on costs were within the court's discretion.
• Driver v. Helms
  577 F.2d 147· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) applies to former government officials and to damage actions against officials in their individual capacities, and that its nationwide service provision is constitutional.
• Mychael W. McCOY v. United States Bd. OF Parole
  537 F.2d 962· 8th Cir.· 1976-06-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus petition if the custodian responsible for the petitioner's confinement can be served with process within the district, even if the petitioner is confined elsewhere.
• Solve E. D'Ippolito v. Am. OIL Co.
  401 F.2d 764· 2d Cir.· 1968-10-08 ·cited 26×
  An order transferring an action to another federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is not a final order and is therefore not immediately appealable.
• ACF Indus. v. The Honorable Ernest Guinn
  384 F.2d 15· 5th Cir.· 1967-09-06 ·cited 26×
• The Gen. Tire & Rubber Co. v. The Honorable R. Dorsey Watkins
  326 F.2d 926· 4th Cir.· 1964-01-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that mandamus is not appropriate to compel the district court to join the United States as a party, dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or transfer the case, as the district court did not abuse its discretion.
• COTÉ v. Wadel
  796 F.2d 981· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 25×
  The court held that a professional corporation is treated as a corporation for diversity jurisdiction purposes and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to transfer the case rather than dismiss it.
• Skil Corp. v. Millers Falls Co.
  541 F.2d 554· 6th Cir.· 1976-08-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Seventh Circuit's prior denial of Skil's petition for a writ of mandamus, which addressed the same transfer issue, was res judicata and established the validity of the transfer as the law of the case.
• Relf v. The Honorable Oliver Gasch
  511 F.2d 804· D.C. Cir.· 1975-04-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court's transfer order was potentially invalid due to unresolved questions of venue and personal jurisdiction over individual defendants.
• Wilkins v. Erickson
  484 F.2d 969· 8th Cir.· 1973-09-26 ·cited 24×
  An order transferring a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is not appealable as of right, but may be reviewed by writ of mandamus if it involves an issue of law or abuse of discretion. The court held that a prisoner may bring a habeas corpus petition in the federal
• Metro. Paving Co., Inc. v. The Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs
  439 F.2d 300· 10th Cir.· 1971-03-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the union's actions constituted a violation of federal labor law, and that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction and made procedural rulings.
• Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp. (Defendant & Third-Party
  431 F.2d 22· 3d Cir.· 1970-08-14 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by transferring the action without determining if the plaintiff had an unqualified right to bring the suit in the transferee district.
• Young v. Dir., U. S. Bureau OF Prisons
  367 F.2d 331· D.C. Cir.· 1966-09-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that prior precedent does not preclude transfer of inmate declaratory judgment actions to the district of confinement under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) following amendments to the venue statute.
• Sumner G. Whittier v. Emmet
  281 F.2d 24· D.C. Cir.· 1960-06-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the lower court erred in allowing interest and attorneys' fees, and that venue for some claims was improper, but that these errors were harmless on appeal after a full hearing on the merits.
• Great N. Ry. Co. v. Hyde
  245 F.2d 537· 8th Cir.· 1957-06-27 ·cited 24×
  The court held that despite the Supreme Court's decision in La Buy, it does not have the power to compel a district judge to vacate a transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) when the transfer involves a discretionary exercise of judgment, even if potentially erroneous.
• Chicago v. Igoe
  212 F.2d 378· 7th Cir.· 1954-04-20 ·cited 24×
  A writ of mandamus may issue to review a district court's denial of a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) when the denial is based on an incorrect legal premise, as such an order may cause irreparable procedural injury.
• LEE v. MacOn Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  429 F.2d 1218· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court did not err in adopting school desegregation plans based on geographic zoning and residential proximity, finding them to be the most practical and feasible options for maximum integration under the circumstances.
• Technitrol, Inc. v. Honorable Edward J. McMANUS
  405 F.2d 84· 8th Cir.· 1968-12-24 ·cited 22×
  The Eighth Circuit denied a writ of mandamus, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to the writ due to unreasonable delay and the lack of a clear abuse of discretion by the lower court.
• Littman v. Bache & Co.
  252 F.2d 479· 2d Cir.· 1958-02-04 ·cited 22×
  A plaintiff has an unconditional right to voluntarily dismiss an action before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment, even if other motions have been filed.
• Chicago v. Hugh Breeding, Inc.
  232 F.2d 584· 10th Cir.· 1956-03-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the railroad's negligence and the truck driver's contributory negligence.
• Voorhies Stelly v. Emp'rs Nat'l Ins. Co. & Bauer Dredging Co., Inc.
  431 F.2d 1251· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-25 ·cited 21×
  An order transferring a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is interlocutory, not a final judgment, and thus requires timely application for leave to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
• Hall v. Burger King Corp.
  912 F. Supp. 1509· S.D. Fla.· 1995-11-13 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by general releases they had executed, as the releases were clear, unambiguous, and the plaintiffs were aware of their claims and represented by counsel when signing them.
• Arkla Exploration Co. & State of Ark. v. Tex. OIL & GAS Corp.
  734 F.2d 347· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-07 ·cited 20×
  The court should not substitute its judgment for the Secretary's if there is a rational basis for the administrative action.
• In re Scott
  709 F.2d 717· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-07 ·cited 20×
  A district court abuses its discretion by sua sponte transferring a FOIA case based solely on the burden of prisoner litigation, especially when Congress designated the District of Columbia as a proper venue.
• Commercial Lighting Prods., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court
  537 F.2d 1078· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 20×
  A district court cannot transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to a district where the plaintiff could not have initially brought the action, even if the defendants consent.
• Danner v. Himmelfarb
  858 F.2d 515· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that Empire's promissory note was not a security under federal securities laws, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of state law claims.
• L.B. Harvey Marine, Inc. v. M/V "River ARC" in rem
  712 F.2d 458· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-15 ·cited 19×
  The appeal is dismissed as moot because the vessel, the res, has left the court's in rem jurisdiction.
• Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman
  288 F.2d 579· 2d Cir.· 1961-02-21 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is proper even without effective personal service in the transferor district, as long as venue is proper and the transfer is in the interest of justice.
• Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Honorable Robert L. Taylor
  286 F.2d 782· 6th Cir.· 1961-01-31 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the transfer of the antitrust action to the Southern District of Mississippi was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), as the improperly joined individual defendants did not bar the transfer of the action against the corporate defendants.
• Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., Inc.
  864 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the dismissal of Active's claims due to an arbitration clause was proper, the transfer of venue was not an abuse of discretion, the Sparlings' fraud claims were properly dismissed for failure to plead with particularity, the Sparlings lacked standing to assert
• Paolino v. Channel Home Ctrs. & Air Control Indus., Inc.
  668 F.2d 721· 3d Cir.· 1981-12-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the complaint stated a claim against Channel Home Centers for knowingly participating in a breach of trust, and that Air Control Industries had sufficient minimum contacts with Pennsylvania for personal jurisdiction.
• Inocencio Fernando Castanho v. Jackson Marine, Inc.
  650 F.2d 546· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the refusal to enjoin proceedings in the district court is not an appealable interlocutory order, but the refusal to enjoin proceedings in other American courts is appealable and was not an abuse of discretion; mandamus is not proper for challenging the forum
• Lewis v. Smith and Cleo Smith
  482 F.2d 799· 6th Cir.· 1973-08-07 ·cited 18×
  Federal courts are required to apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 to determine when an action is commenced, even in diversity cases, and this rule is not superseded by a conflicting state statute.
• Carr v. Donohoe
  201 F.2d 426· 8th Cir.· 1953-02-03 ·cited 18×
  This Court cannot review a district court's order granting a transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) via a writ of prohibition or mandamus when the order does not impair the appellate court's jurisdiction.
• Suomen Colorize Oy v. Dish Network L.L.C.
  801 F. Supp. 2d 1334· M.D. Fla.· 2011-07-08 ·cited 17×
  The court granted the motion to transfer the patent infringement case to the District of Colorado, finding that the convenience of the parties and witnesses, along with the location of evidence, weighed strongly in favor of transfer.
• A. J. Indus., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.
  503 F.2d 384· 9th Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the ability to raise the subject matter of a suit by counterclaim in the transferee district generally satisfies the "where it might have been brought" requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), even if leave of court is required.
• Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
  804 F. Supp. 2d 1271· S.D. Fla.· 2011-08-17 ·cited 16×
  The court granted the motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Washington, finding it to be the more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses.
• Pfizer, Inc. v. Honorable Miles W. Lord
  447 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-13 ·cited 16×
  A district judge to whom multidistrict litigation is assigned under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 has the power to transfer such actions for trial under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and such a transfer will be upheld if it is not a clear abuse of discretion.
• Am. OIL Co. v. McMULLIN
  433 F.2d 1091· 10th Cir.· 1970-11-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a defect in removal jurisdiction can be waived by the parties' conduct and that the injunction against pursuing unrelated liens was improperly granted.
• Preston Corp. & Preston Pub. Serv. Corp. v. Raese
  335 F.2d 827· 4th Cir.· 1964-07-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an order transferring venue is not an appealable order, and this court lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court outside its territorial jurisdiction.