28 U.S.C. § 1406(A) Transfer

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

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Gulf Research & Dev. Co. v. Leahy
  193 F.2d 302· 3d Cir.· 1951-12-13 ·cited 39×
  The court held that a writ of mandamus is not appropriate to review an order transferring a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) because an appeal from the final judgment provides an adequate remedy.
• 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.
• 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.
• Sinclair v. Kleindienst
  711 F.2d 291· D.C. Cir.· 1983-06-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the claims for failure to state a claim and in denying the motions to transfer.
• 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).
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Atkins v. Schmutz Mfg. Co.
  401 F.2d 731· 4th Cir.· 1968-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Virginia statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's action because the prior suit filed in Kentucky did not toll the Virginia statute under Virginia law.
• Spears v. W.E. Johnson
  859 F.2d 853· 11th Cir.· 1988-10-19 ·cited 4×
  A prisoner's individual damages claim is not barred by a pending class action seeking injunctive relief, even if the class action addresses similar conditions.
• 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.
• Spar, Inc. v. Info. Res., Inc.
  956 F.2d 392· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-11 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge argues that the case should be reversed and transferred, or at least remanded, because the district court incorrectly denied transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) without considering the interests of justice.
• 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.
• Flowers Indus., Inc. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  835 F.2d 775· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 2×
  Venue was improper because a corporation resides only in its state of incorporation for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(4).
• 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
• Shenzhen Mammotion Innovation Co., Ltd. v. FutureGen Techs. Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-15
  Venue is improper in the District of Columbia because the substantial events giving rise to the claims occurred in Florida, not D.C.
• Camarao v. State of N.J.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-09
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the New Jersey defendants were time-barred and that venue was improper for the remaining claims, warranting transfer to the Southern District of Florida.
• Kenyatta v. Hall
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-17
  The court directed the pro se plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be transferred to the Middle District of Florida due to improper venue.
• Asbury v. Arriaga
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-20
  The court held that venue was improper in the Middle District of Florida and ordered the case transferred to the District of Oregon.
• Emrit v. Jules
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-06-26
  The court held that venue was improper in the District of South Carolina and transferred the case to the District of Florida.
• Emrit v. Univ. of Miami Sch. of Law
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-06-26
  The court held that venue was improper in the District of South Carolina and transferred the case to the Southern District of Florida.
• Kitzel v. Tunnell Gov't Servs. Inc
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-03-02
  The court held that venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida because the defendant transacted business there by hiring and utilizing a remote employee. The court denied the motion to transfer, finding the defendant failed to meet its burden under § 1404(a).
• Simon v. Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst. (FCI) Tallahassee
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-12-02
  The court held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Florida and transferred the case to the Northern District of Florida in the interest of justice.
• Tobler v. Skigen
  N.D. Fla.· 2021-03-31
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Skigen, and that the remaining claims should be transferred to another district.
• Auf v. Medford
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-03-25
  Dr. Rehab Auf sued Howard University and four of its officials in Florida federal court for employment-related claims arising from her disputed appointment and subsequent termination from a faculty position at the university in Washington, D.C. The court granted defendants' motio
• In re B.L. Peregoy
  885 F.2d 349· 6th Cir.· 1989-09-22
  The court held that mandamus was not appropriate to compel the district court to set aside an order transferring the case, as the transfer was proper.