The district courts of the United States, the United States courts of any territory, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction of offenses and violations under this chapter and under the rules and regulations prescribed by the Director pursuant thereto, and concurrent with State courts, of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by this chapter. Any such suit or action may be brought to enforce any liability or duty created by this chapter. Any such suit or action may be brought in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business, or in the district where the offer or sale took place, if the defendant participated therein, and process in such cases may be served in any other district of which the defendant is an inhabitant or wherever the defendant may be found. Judgments and decrees so rendered shall be subject to review as provided in sections 1254 and 1291 of title 28. No case arising under this chapter and brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States, except where the United States or any officer or employee of the United States in his official capacity is a party. No costs shall be assessed for or against the Director in any proceeding under this chapter brought by or against him in the Supreme Court or such other courts.
Notes of Decisions
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 136 S. Ct. 1562 (2016).
“§ 1642 (e) ; Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act of 1968, 15 U.S.C. § 1719 . 4 The concurrence adopts a slightly different approach, placing in federal court Exchange Act claims plus all state-law claims necessarily raising an Exchange Act issue.”
Adair v. Hunt Int'l Resources Corp., 526 F. Supp. 736 (N.D. Ill. 1981).
· cites it 2× “§ 77v, 15 U.S.C. § 1719 . 6 Unlike the familiar “minimum contacts” test used to determine personal jurisdiction, these liberal special venue provisions do not require that the activities used to establish venue be “related” or “connected” to the transaction attacked in the…”
Rolo v. City Investing Co., 845 F. Supp. 182 (D.N.J. 1993).
· cites it 2× “§ 1964 ; Section 1420 of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (the “Land Sales Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1719 ; Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act”), 15 U.”
Liles v. Ginn-La West End, Ltd., 631 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 2011).
“15 ILSA’s venue provision, 15 U.S.C. §1719 , provides in pertinent part that an ILSA suit may be brought in the district wherein the defendant is found or is an inhabitant or transacts business, or in the district where the offer or sale took place, if the defendant participated…”
Meridian Ventures, LLC v. One North Ocean, LLC, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Jurisdiction This court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1719 because the plaintiffs complaint raises a claim under 15 U.”
Trotta v. Lighthouse Point Land Co., LLC, 551 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Jurisdiction This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1719 because the plaintiffs complaint raises a claim under 15 U.”
Appalachian, Inc. v. Olson, 468 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
“15 U.S.C. § 1719 . Appellants are developers of a condominium project, along with other interested parties.”
Fogel v. Sellamerica, Ltd., 445 F. Supp. 1269 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).
“Jurisdiction is based on § 1420 of the Land Sales Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1719 , § 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.”
Plaza Court, L.P. v. Baker-Chaput, 17 So. 3d 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
“§ 1719 (2000), which provides that the United States District Courts and State courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction “of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by [the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act].”
Hester v. Hidden Valley Lakes, Inc., 495 F. Supp. 48 (N.D. Miss. 1980).
“The court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1719 . All other issues involved in the plaintiffs’ complaint having been previously dismissed, the only count remaining is one under 15 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.