How cited: POSVEN, C.A. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · Go Syfert

POSVEN, C.A. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (2004)

green · 75 citation events across 12 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200420152026
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y. · 2 citations in this opinion
Consistent with that approach, “several courts in this District consequently have found that ‘a showing of changed circumstances is not required if transfer is in the interests of justice.’” Fisher, 204 F. Supp.3d at 624 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Posven, C.A. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 303 F. Supp.2d 391, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (collecting cases)).
collecting cases
Rule Authority · E.D. Pa. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (citing Schechter v. Tauck Tours, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 255, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)).
citing Schechter v. Tauck Tours, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 255, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (citing Schechter v. Tauck Tours, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 255, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)).
citing Schechter v. Tauck Tours, Inc., 17 F. Supp. 2d 255, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y. · 2 citations in this opinion
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 400-01 (S.D.N.Y.2004); see also Reliance Ins.
Quote Authority · E.D.N.Y
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391 , 397 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“Where general jurisdiction is asserted, the claim need not arise out of the defendant's contacts with the forum state ….”) III.
“Where general jurisdiction is asserted, the claim need not arise out of the defendant's contacts with the forum state ….”
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)); see also Cooper, Robertson & Partners, LLP v. Vail, 143 F. Supp. 2d 367, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“Defendants are correct in noting that a single meeting in New York will rarely provide the basis for jurisdiction pursuant to § 302(a)(1), especially when that meeting does not result in the execution of a contract.”).
Rule Authority · C.D. Cal.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
green Gaynor v. Diamond (2025)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Quote Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391 , 400 n.3 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“[C]ourts have recognized that if transfer pursuant to 1404(a) is appropriate, then a fortiori transfer is appropriate under 1406(a) . . . and that the crucial determination under either section is whether the proposed transfer is in the interest of justice.”). witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice.’” Id. (alteration in original) (first quoting Gross v. British Broad.
“[C]ourts have recognized that if transfer pursuant to 1404(a) is appropriate, then a fortiori transfer is appropriate under 1406(a) . . . and that the crucial determination under either section is whether the proposed transfer is in the interest of justice.”
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)).
Rule Authority · W.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“[A]n action might have been brought in another forum if, at the time the action was originally filed, the transferee court would have had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendants ....” (emphasis added)).
“[A]n action might have been brought in another forum if, at the time the action was originally filed, the transferee court would have had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendants ....” (emphasis added)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ill.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 407-08 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (citing Spar, Inc. v. Info.
citing Spar, Inc. v. Info. Res., Inc., 956 F.2d 392 (2d Cir. 1992)
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“[A]n action might have been brought in another forum if, at the time the action was originally filed, the transferee court would have had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendants ....” (emphasis added)).
“[A]n action might have been brought in another forum if, at the time the action was originally filed, the transferee court would have had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendants ....” (emphasis added)
Rule Authority · W.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 407-08 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (citing Spar, Inc. v. Info.
citing Spar, Inc. v. Info. Res., Inc., 956 F.2d 392 (2d Cir. 1992)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)).
Rule Authority · W.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 408 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 408 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Rule Authority · M.D. Tenn.
Co., No. 02 Civ. 0623(PKL), 2004 WL 63497, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
Rule Authority · Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (emphasis added); accord Lapushner v. Admedus Ltd., 2020 WL 777332 , at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
emphasis added
Rule Authority · M.D. Tenn.
Co., No. 02 Civ. 0623(PKL), 2004 WL 63497, at *7 (S.D.N.Y.
emphases added
green Schweitzer v. Nevels (2023)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)).
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)); see also Three Five Compounds, Inc. v. Scram Techs., Inc., 2011 WL 5838697 , at *4–5 (collecting cases).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 407 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)); see Nat’!
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)).
green Wiersum v. Chakroff (2021)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 404, 408 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (transferring venue partly to obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant).4 Under § 1404(a), transfer appears to be appropriate in this case.
transferring venue partly to obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (under Section 1404(a), “an action might have been brought in another forum if, at the time the action was originally filed, the transferee court would have had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and if venue would have been proper in the transferee court.”).
under Section 1404(a
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)). “[WJeighing the balance [of the factors] is essentially an equitable task left to the [c]ourt’s discretion.” ESPN, Inc., 581 F. Supp. 2d at 547 .
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
green Williams v. Stephens (2019)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F. Supp. 2d 391, 406 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
green Smolen v. Brauer (2016)
Rule Authority · W.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y.2004).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 398 (S.D.N.Y.2004); see also Three Five Compounds, 2011 WL 5838697 , at *4-5 (collecting cases).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y.2004).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 405 (S.D.N.Y.2004)); Lesser v. Camp Wildwood, No. 01 Civ. 4209(RWS), 2002 WL 1792039 , at *6 (S.D.N.Y.
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (“[A]n action might have been brought in another forum if, at the time the action was originally filed, the transferee court would have had subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and if venue would have been proper in the transferee court.”) (emphasis added); see also ACE Am.
green Johnson v. Bryson (2012)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 404 (S.D.N.Y.2004), The party moving for a Section 1404 transfer bears the heavy burden of showing that a plaintiffs choice of forum should be set aside.
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 404 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (discussing such factors as “(1) the convenience of witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; [and] (4) the locus of the operative facts”).
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y
See, e.g. id. (“Although all factors are relevant, no one factor is dispositive and other factors may be considered.”); CutCo Industries, Inc. v. Naughton, 806 F.2d 361, 366-7 (2d Cir. *422 1986) (holding that although “relevant in determining whether a nondomiciliary ‘transacted business’ for CPLR 302(a)(1) purposes,” choice of law provisions standing alone are insufficient to confer jurisdiction); Berkshire Capital Group, LLC v. Palmet Ventures, LLC, 307 Fed.Appx. 479, 481…
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 400-01 (S.D.N.Y.2004).
Rule Authority · E.D.N.Y
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 405 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (“A forum’s familiarity with the governing law ... is one of the least important factors in determining a motion to transfer, especially where no complex questions of foreign law are involved.”).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 404 (S.D.N.Y.2004).
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 404 (S.D.N.Y.2004); Reliance Ins.
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 404 (S.D.N.Y.2004); Reliance Ins.
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 404 (S.D.N.Y.2004); Reliance Ins., 155 F.Supp.2d at 56-57 ; Trehern v. OMI Corp., No. 98 Civ. 0242, 1999 WL 47303 , at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Co., 303 F.Supp.2d 391, 401 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (citations omitted).
Rule Authority · D. Conn.
In Posven, the court held that the key inquiry under both § 1404(a) and § 1406(a) is whether the transfer is in the interests of justice. 303 F.Supp.2d at 401, n. 3 .
Cited · W.D.N.Y. · signal: see
See Posven, 303 F. Supp. 2d at 405 (“A forum’s familiarity with the governing law, however, is one of the least important factors in determining a motion to transfer, especially where no complex questions of foreign law are involved.” (citations omit- ted)).
“A forum’s familiarity with the governing law, however, is one of the least important factors in determining a motion to transfer, especially where no complex questions of foreign law are involved.” (citations omit- ted)