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

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

• Littman v. Bache & Co.
  246 F.2d 490· 2d Cir.· 1957-06-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an order granting a transfer of venue is not immediately appealable, but an order vacating a notice of dismissal is appealable if the lower court had lost jurisdiction.
• Gen. Portland Cement Co. v. Perry
  204 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1953-05-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion to transfer the case, as the defendant failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the balance of convenience strongly favored transfer.
• Gonzalez v. Volvo OF Am. Corp.
  734 F.2d 1221· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-16 ·cited 15×
  The court held that a new trial is required due to prejudicial closing arguments by plaintiffs' counsel, and that the district court erred by not applying the choice of law rules of the original forum state (Arkansas) after a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• Barnes Grp., Inc. v. C & C Prods., Inc.
  716 F.2d 1023· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Ohio's substantive law should apply to both the contract validity and tortious interference claims, disagreeing with the majority's application of Alabama and Louisiana law.
• Benson J. Lamp v. Andrus
  657 F.2d 1167· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an appeal from a district court order that adjudicates fewer than all claims or parties, without an express determination and direction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), is not a final judgment and thus not appealable.
• Concession Consultants, Inc. v. Mirisch
  355 F.2d 369· 2d Cir.· 1966-01-21 ·cited 14×
  A district court judge cannot sua sponte raise and decide the issue of improper venue when the defendants have not raised it and have otherwise waived their objection.
• H. L. Green Co., Inc. v. The Honorable Lloyd F. MacMAHON
  312 F.2d 650· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-25 ·cited 14×
  A district court's order transferring a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) will not be set aside by writ of mandamus, even if the transferee court might apply less favorable law, as long as the transfer is within the court's power and convenience justifies it.
• Harold C. Ackert for the benefit of Laura B. Smith v. Honorable Frederick van Pelt Bryan
  299 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1962-01-03 ·cited 14×
  The court denied a petition for mandamus seeking to stay a transfer of venue, finding that the transferee court must assume jurisdiction to consider the substantial question of Investment Company Act applicability, despite doubts.
• Cellularvision Tech. & Telecomms., L.P. v. Alltel Corp.
  508 F. Supp. 2d 1186· S.D. Fla.· 2007-04-17 ·cited 13×
  The court granted the defendants' motions to transfer venue because the balance of private and public interest factors weighed in favor of transferring the case to the Eastern District of Arkansas.
• Ferens v. Deere & Co.
  862 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1987-05-28 ·cited 13×
  The dissent argues that Section 1404(a) does not require a change of law when a plaintiff initiates a transfer, and therefore, the plaintiff's motion for transfer was not impermissible forum shopping.
• In re Fireman's Fund Ins. Cos.
  588 F.2d 93· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-02 ·cited 13×
  A contractual forum selection clause is valid and enforceable under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) even when it conflicts with a special venue statute like the Miller Act, provided the clause is not unreasonable.
• Am. Aircraft Sales Int'l, Inc. v. Airwarsaw, Inc.
  55 F. Supp. 2d 1347· M.D. Fla.· 1999-07-02 ·cited 12×
  The court granted the motion to transfer venue, finding that the convenience of the parties and witnesses, the location of evidence, and the interest of justice weighed strongly in favor of transferring the case to the Northern District of Indiana.
• In re Galiardi
  745 F.2d 335· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a) to amend its prior transfer order to specify a different statutory basis, as this constituted a substantive change affecting substantial rights, not a mere clerical correction.
• Bolding v. Austin
  575 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1978-04-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the complaint, which sought to have the federal district court assume supervision of the entire state prison system, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and should have been dismissed.
• United States v. United States Dist. Court
  506 F.2d 383· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-30 ·cited 12×
  The court denied the petition for writs of mandamus or prohibition because the petitioner lacked standing and failed to show a clear right to the extraordinary relief.
• Hewlett Akers v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.
  378 F.2d 78· 4th Cir.· 1967-05-05 ·cited 12×
  Denial of a transfer motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) was an abuse of discretion, and mandamus should issue to compel the transfer.
• B. J. Semel Assocs., Inc. v. United Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc.
  355 F.2d 827· D.C. Cir.· 1965-12-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant corporation did not 'transact business' within the District of Columbia for venue purposes based on the facts presented.
• Larsen v. Nordbye
  181 F.2d 765· 8th Cir.· 1950-05-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a district judge's denial of a motion to dismiss an action without prejudice is not reviewable by writ of mandamus or prohibition.
• Thermal Techs., Inc. v. Dade Serv. Corp.
  282 F. Supp. 2d 1373· S.D. Fla.· 2003-08-22 ·cited 11×
  The court held that transfer of venue to the Middle District of Florida was appropriate for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice.
• Blanco v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela, S.A.
  997 F.2d 974· 2d Cir.· 1993-04-30 ·cited 11×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred in applying forum non conveniens by failing to give sufficient weight to the forum selection clause.
• Carteret Sav. Bank v. Shushan
  919 F.2d 225· 3d Cir.· 1990-11-19 ·cited 11×
  The court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) permits a district court to transfer a case to another district even over the plaintiff's objection, provided the transfer is in the interest of justice and the case could have been brought in the transferee district.
• Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Inc.
  886 F.2d 758· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-26 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying consolidation, changing venue, or in its evidentiary rulings and comments by counsel.
• Perley Wilson v. Prasse
  404 F.2d 1380· 3d Cir.· 1968-12-16 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the prisoner's allegations of denial of religious exercise stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the dismissal of this claim was improper.
• Wiley Goad v. Celotex Corp.
  831 F.2d 508· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that applying the forum state's statute of limitations, even if longer than another state's, does not violate the Due Process or Full Faith and Credit Clauses of the Constitution.
• Edwardsville Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Marion Labs., Inc.
  808 F.2d 648· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Indiana court correctly applied Indiana law and dismissed the case, even if the transfer ground was misstated by the transferor court.
• Nalls v. Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  702 F.2d 255· D.C. Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 10×
  The denial of a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it is conclusive, resolves an issue separate from the merits, and is effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
• Wren v. Carlson
  506 F.2d 131· D.C. Cir.· 1974-09-12 ·cited 10×
  The court concurred in the result that the case should be dismissed as frivolous and potentially transferred to the Northern District of Georgia.
• WM. A. Smith Contracting Co., Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  467 F.2d 662· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a written settlement agreement, which contained mutual releases and was intended to resolve all claims under the contracts, could not be modified by a contemporaneous oral agreement regarding a specific fire damage claim, absent fraud, accident, or mistake.
• Ala. Great S. R.R. Co. v. Allied Chem. Corp.
  467 F.2d 679· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that under Virginia's choice of law rules, Mississippi's statute of limitations, which extinguishes the right as well as the remedy, would apply to this products liability case, and that the cause of action accrued at the time of the derailment, not the time of man
• LEE v. City OF Troy Bd. OF Educ.
  432 F.2d 819· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-24 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's approval of a school desegregation plan, finding it workable and in accord with mandates, despite one elementary school's first three grades remaining all-black.
• The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. The Honorable James B. Parsons
  307 F.2d 924· 7th Cir.· 1962-09-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court was bound by the state court's forum non conveniens ruling and should have transferred the case.
• Telephonics Corp. & Fabrionics Corp. v. Lindly & Co., Inc.
  291 F.2d 445· 2d Cir.· 1961-06-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court had the power to enjoin the prosecution of a duplicative lawsuit in another forum and that New York was the more appropriate forum.
• Johnson & Johnson v. Honorable Frank A. Picard
  282 F.2d 386· 6th Cir.· 1960-08-26 ·cited 10×
  A district court cannot transfer a patent infringement action to a district where venue is not proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), even if the defendant waives venue.
• The Mut. Life Ins. Co. OF NEW York v. Bonn Kraus Ginsburg & John Paul Ginsburg
  228 F.2d 881· 3d Cir.· 1956-01-10 ·cited 10×
  An order transferring a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is interlocutory and not appealable, but an order allowing fees for a guardian ad litem payable from a fund in court custody is appealable.
• Gross v. Owen
  221 F.2d 94· D.C. Cir.· 1955-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The District Court has the discretion to dismiss a case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, even after the enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• Tampa Bay Storm, Inc. v. Arena Football League, Inc.
  932 F. Supp. 281· M.D. Fla.· 1996-07-01 ·cited 9×
  The court denied the defendant's motion to change venue, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the balance of convenience strongly favored transfer to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado.
• Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc.
  933 F.2d 1253· 4th Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of retransfer and grant of summary judgment, holding that the forum selection clause and choice of law provision in the franchise agreement were valid and that the releases executed by the plaintiff were enforceable.
• Moses v. Bus. Card Express, Inc.
  929 F.2d 1131· 6th Cir.· 1991-04-08 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless shown to be unreasonable, and that general allegations of fraud do not invalidate such clauses or choice of law provisions.
• Reyes v. The Supervisor OF the Drug Enf't Admin.
  834 F.2d 1093· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-08 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the improper disclosure claim was time-barred, the § 1983 claims against state officials were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and equitable expungement was not warranted. However, the court remanded with leave to amend the complaint to name the United States
• Hal Jenkins v. Prime Ins. Co
  32 F.4th 1343· 11th Cir.· 2022-05-04 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal because the district court's order, which dismissed some claims and transferred others, was not a final decision and did not meet the requirements for interlocutory appeal.
• Stateline Power Corp. v. Kremer
  404 F. Supp. 2d 1373· S.D. Fla.· 2005-12-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it had personal jurisdiction over the defendant and that Florida's economic loss rule did not bar the breach of fiduciary duty claim, denying the motion to dismiss. The court also denied the motion to transfer venue.
• Deleski v. Raymark Indus., Inc.
  819 F.2d 377· 3d Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to transfer and granting summary judgment, as the claims were barred by the Pennsylvania statute of limitations.
• 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.
• The Toro Co. & Toro Sales Co. v. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop
  565 F.2d 998· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had the power to sever a count and transfer it, and that its action was not so arbitrary as to warrant mandamus review.
• United States v. Honorable Miles W. Lord
  542 F.2d 719· 8th Cir.· 1976-08-02 ·cited 8×
  The court denied a writ prohibiting the district judge from discharging jurors but prohibited him from transferring the action to another district court and directed prompt disposition.
• McADOO v. Union Nat'l Bank of Little Rock
  535 F.2d 1050· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury's findings of Ezrine's apparent authority and the loan not being usurious were supported by substantial evidence, affirming those aspects of the judgment. However, the case was remanded for the district court to consider the Bank's motion for judicial
• Wood v. Zapata Corp.
  482 F.2d 350· 3d Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge's failure to transcribe an informal argument or make findings of fact and conclusions of law did not meet the restrictive test for issuing a writ of mandamus or prohibition.
• Am. Concrete Agric. Pipe Ass'n v. No-Joint Concrete Pipe Co.
  331 F.2d 706· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of venue is interlocutory and not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that review by writ of mandamus was not warranted in this case.
• Collins v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co. OF ST. Louis
  230 F.2d 416· 2d Cir.· 1956-02-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds was improper and that the Louisiana direct action statute is enforceable in a federal court in New York.
• 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.