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

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

• Jewelmasters, Inc. v. May Dep't Stores Co.
  840 F. Supp. 893· S.D. Fla.· 1993-11-12 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice weighed in favor of transferring the case to the Central District of California.
• Carteret Sav. Bank v. Shushan
  954 F.2d 141· 3d Cir.· 1992-01-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the New Jersey long-arm statute, coextensive with federal due process, confers personal jurisdiction over attorneys who commit tortious acts within the state, even if those acts are related to out-of-state transactions.
• J.I. Kislak Mortg. Corp. v. Conn. Bank & Tr. Co.
  604 F. Supp. 346· S.D. Fla.· 1985-01-11 ·cited 7×
  A motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) will be denied if the defendant fails to make a clear and convincing showing that the balance of convenience strongly favors the transferee court. General allegations regarding witnesses and records are insufficient.
• In re Cragar Indus., Inc.
  706 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-18 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a transferee court should not re-transfer a case absent unforeseen events frustrating the original transfer purpose, and found no such events here.
• Ingeborg Schleier v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, Inc.
  876 F.2d 174· D.C. Cir.· 1989-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that any award of damages would not be subject to income taxation. The court also found that the jury instructions regarding inflation and discounting to present value were inadequate.
• NBS Imaging Sys., Inc. v. United States Dist. Court FOR the E. Dist. OF Cal.
  841 F.2d 297· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of mandamus challenging a transfer order, even after the case has been docketed in the transferee court, but denied the petition.
• Gower v. Lehman
  799 F.2d 925· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-04 ·cited 6×
  A district court's order transferring a case to the Claims Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, based on a finding of lack of jurisdiction, is a final and appealable order.
• United States Aluminum Corp. v. Kawneer Co., Inc.
  694 F.2d 193· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion and that the transfer of a declaratory judgment action to another district was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• In re Nine Mile Ltd.
  692 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 6×
  The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, upholding the district court's order to transfer the case to the District of South Carolina.
• The Superior OIL Co. & Pennzoil Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Andrus
  656 F.2d 33· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the 'may be found' venue provision of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) applies to government defendants, allowing suits against them in any district where they can be found.
• Bhd. OF Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Cent. OF Ga. Ry. Co. & S. Ry. Co.
  411 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1969-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court in Georgia should have transferred the case to the District of Columbia, as a similar action was already pending and being prosecuted there, and the parties were bound by its rulings.
• Ill. Sci. Developments, Inc. v. Honorable John J. Sirica
  410 F.2d 237· D.C. Cir.· 1968-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by transferring the case without sufficient evidence that the action could have been brought in the transferee district.
• Am. Flyers Airline Corp. v. Farrell
  385 F.2d 936· 2d Cir.· 1967-11-22 ·cited 6×
  A writ of mandamus will not be issued to compel the transfer of tort actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) when the lower court has exercised its discretion, as mandamus is reserved for truly extraordinary causes and not for correcting mere errors.
• Am. Pac. Dairy Prods., Inc. v. Siciliano
  235 F.2d 74· 9th Cir.· 1956-06-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in calculating partnership profits and in failing to order an accounting for post-dissolution profits, but correctly denied jury trials and venue changes. The court also found certain charges in the open book account claim unsupported.
• Perez-Lang v. Corporacion De Hoteles, S.A.
  575 F. Supp. 2d 1345· S.D. Fla.· 2008-09-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Dominican Republic is an available and adequate alternative forum, and the private and public interest factors overwhelmingly support dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
• In re Cuyahoga Equip. Corp. v. United States
  980 F.2d 110· 2d Cir.· 1992-11-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the settlement agreement resolving both bankruptcy and CERCLA claims, and did not err in refusing to transfer the case or in approving the settlement as fair and reasonable.
• Lewelling v. Farmers Ins. OF Columbus, Inc.
  879 F.2d 212· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-10 ·cited 5×
  The court held that plaintiffs' breach of contract claims were barred by the Ohio parol evidence rule, and fraud claims were barred by the California statute of limitations, as applied under Ohio's choice of law rules.
• Feller v. Brock
  802 F.2d 722· 4th Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the West Virginia district court abused its discretion by issuing a preliminary injunction that conflicted with a prior, binding injunction from the District of Columbia, and that intervention as of right should have been granted.
• Livingston v. United States Dep't of Just.
  759 F.2d 74· D.C. Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court erred by adjudicating the merits of an expungement case that should have been transferred to a more convenient forum and by misapplying the law regarding expungement of arrest records.
• Cowan v. Ford Motor Co.
  713 F.2d 100· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-12 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the federal doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply when a transfer to another federal district court is possible under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court also adheres to its original view that Mississippi's exercise of jurisdiction does not violate due pr
• Application of Golconda Mining Corp. & Harry F. Magnuson v. Hon. William B. Herlands
  365 F.2d 856· 2d Cir.· 1966-08-08 ·cited 5×
• Flynn v. Stern
  533 F. Supp. 3d 1120· M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-04 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the defendant's motion to transfer venue because the defendant failed to meet the burden of showing that the proposed forum was more convenient or that the interests of justice required transfer.
• Integrated Sec. Servs. v. Skidata, Inc.
  609 F. Supp. 2d 1323· S.D. Fla.· 2009-04-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a challenge to the validity of the entire contract, rather than specifically the arbitration clause, must be decided by an arbitrator. The court also found that the broad language of the arbitration clause encompassed the plaintiff's tort claims.
• BP Prods. N. Am., Inc. v. Super Stop 79, Inc.
  464 F. Supp. 2d 1253· S.D. Fla.· 2006-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that enforcing forum selection clauses in promissory notes would lead to piecemeal litigation and inconsistent judgments, and that claims against a guarantor were not premature.
• XR Co. v. Block & Balestri, P.C.
  44 F. Supp. 2d 1296· S.D. Fla.· 1999-03-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a forum selection clause in a retainer agreement is enforceable, and therefore, the case should be transferred to the specified venue.
• Landmark Land Co., Inc. v. Off. OF Thrift Supervision
  948 F.2d 910· 5th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 4×
  A district court cannot transfer an action challenging an OTS cease-and-desist order to a district not specified in 12 U.S.C. § 1818(c)(2), as 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(1) bars other courts from affecting such orders.
• Carver v. Knox Cnty.
  887 F.2d 1287· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that claims against state defendants should be severed and transferred to the Middle District of Tennessee for consolidation with ongoing statewide litigation, while claims against county defendants should be remanded for redetermination under proper standards.
• Local Union 77, Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co.
  506 F.2d 523· 9th Cir.· 1974-11-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the case was not moot despite the employee's promotion, as a live controversy regarding the arbitrability of the company's job bid policy remained.
• Grossman v. Pearlman
  353 F.2d 284· 2d Cir.· 1965-12-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the order quashing service of process was proper and that the order denying the motion to transfer the New Jersey state court action to federal court was appealable and also properly denied.
• Consul Ltd. v. Solide Enters., Inc.
  802 F.2d 1143· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaints for failure to state claims, as the California licensing statutes do not apply to out-of-state acts and the tort claims were not necessarily barred by contract illegality.
• Byrd v. Martin
  754 F.2d 963· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-08 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court improperly dismissed the habeas corpus petition without prejudice, as jurisdiction existed in the district of confinement and the issues presented differed from a prior petition.
• Mirabal v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.
  2024 WL 50239· S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court overruled the plaintiff's objections to a magistrate judge's order transferring the cases, affirming the transfer.
• Top Off. Pros Bus. Servs., Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.
  2024 WL 50239· S.D. Fla.· 2025-09-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case should be transferred to the Southern District of Florida under the first-filed rule because the issues and parties are substantially similar to an earlier-filed action in that district.
• Garcia Trujillo v. Jaddou
  2018 WL 1173094· S.D. Fla.· 2023-03-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the District of Columbia.
• Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glovegold, Ltd.
  135 F.R.D. 139· M.D. Fla.· 1994-03-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a motion to transfer filed late in proceedings, with significant uncertainty about the ability to arrest the vessel even if transferred, should be denied.
• Alexander v. Erie Ins. Exch.
  982 F.2d 1153· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the driver was not a resident of his mother's household under the insurance policy, and therefore, coverage was not provided.
• Rose v. Franchetti
  979 F.2d 81· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant and its entry of default judgment, finding that the defendant's actions and the amended Illinois long-arm statute supported jurisdiction, and that the defendant's conduct warranted sancti
• Kemp v. GAY
  947 F.2d 1493· D.C. Cir.· 1991-11-01 ·cited 2×
  An order enforcing an administrative subpoena is a final and appealable order, and venue for enforcement lies where the agency investigation or proceeding is carried on.
• Hershey Foods Corp. v. Hershey Creamery Co.
  945 F.2d 1272· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-03 ·cited 2×
  An interlocutory order enjoining a party from prosecuting a related action in another district court is not an immediately appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if it does not grant or protect the substantive relief sought by the claimant.
• Crase v. Astroworld, Inc.
  941 F.2d 265· 5th Cir.· 1991-05-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Louisiana's one-year prescriptive period applies to tort actions filed in Louisiana federal court, barring the plaintiff's suit, and that a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) would not change the outcome.
• In re Am. President Lines, Ltd.
  929 F.2d 226· 6th Cir.· 1991-03-25 ·cited 2×
  The court denied the petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition.
• Khalil-Ullah Al-Muhaymin v. Jones
  895 F.2d 1147· 6th Cir.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1392(a) when defendants reside in different districts within the same state, and the district court erred in dismissing the action sua sponte.
• RED Bull Assocs. v. Best W. Int'l, Inc.
  862 F.2d 963· 2d Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 2×
  A district court's discretion to transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is broad, and enforcing a forum selection clause is not mandatory when it would contravene strong public policy, such as the enforcement of civil rights laws.
• Jacobo Finkielstain v. Seidel
  857 F.2d 893· 2d Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 2×
  The Maryland Deposit Insurance Fund Corp. (MDIF), acting as receiver, is the real party in interest but is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity when liquidating an institution's assets.
• Cianbro Corp. v. Curran-Lavoie, Inc.
  814 F.2d 7· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the settlement agreement was clear and unambiguous, resolving all disputes, and that Cianbro was entitled to set-off the disputed amount from its note payments.
• Milstead v. Rison
  702 F.2d 216· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-04 ·cited 2×
  Texas did not waive jurisdiction over Milstead by transferring him to federal custody, and his constitutional rights were not violated.
• Surco Prods., Inc. v. Theochem Labs., Inc.
  528 F. Supp. 677· S.D. Fla.· 1981-12-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden to show that a transfer to the Southern District of Florida was warranted, and therefore the case should be transferred back to the Middle District of Florida.
• McADOO v. Union Nat'l Bank of Little Rock
  558 F.2d 1313· 8th Cir.· 1977-07-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in transferring the case to the Western District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because the original suit, seeking a declaration that a note and deed of trust were void, was a transitory action and could not have been brought in th
• I-T-E Cir. Breaker Co. v. Honorable John K. Regan
  348 F.2d 403· 8th Cir.· 1965-07-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the application for a writ of prohibition was denied because the district court's order to transfer the antitrust action was not an abuse of discretion and did not violate due process or 28 U.S.C.A. § 1404(a).
• United States v. Honorable Caleb M. Wright
  282 F.2d 428· 3d Cir.· 1960-03-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus is not appropriate to correct a district judge's alleged mistake of law regarding change of venue standards, as this would improperly substitute the writ for an appeal.