28 U.S.C. § 1401
Stockholder’s derivative action
Any civil action by a stockholder on behalf of his corporation may be prosecuted in any judicial district where the corporation might have sued the same defendants.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1949–2024 · leading case: Edwards v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 313 F. Supp. 3d 618 (E.D. Pa. 2018).
Edwards v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 313 F. Supp. 3d 618 (E.D. Pa. 2018). “1995), the Third Circuit instructed district courts to consider the "interests of justice" in deciding motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1401 (a). Given that the FCRA is remedial legislation, Cortez v.”
In the Matter of Emanuel Josephson, 218 F.2d 174 (1st Cir. 1954). “Venue in the District of Massachusetts could equally well be rested upon the provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1401 that, “Any civil action by a stockholder on behalf of his corporation may be prosecuted in any judicial district where the corporation might have sued the same defendants.”
Navajo Health Found.-Sage Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Burwell, 86 F. Supp. 3d 1211 (D.N.M. 2015). “12(b)(3) or Motion to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1401 (a), 1 filed November 25, 2014 (Doc.”
Ve Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “28 U.S.C. § 1401 . 14 . Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, Pub.”
Univ. Rsch. Co. v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 500 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1401 (b)(1) (emphasis added); RAMCOR, 185 F.”
Louis v. Hagel, 177 F. Supp. 3d 401 (D.D.C. 2016). “See 28 U.S.C. § 1401 (a). C. CONCLUSION For the reasons explained above, the court finds that venue is proper here in the District of Columbia and the Defendant’s motion will be denied by separate order.”
Zurich Am. Ins. v. Tejas Concrete & Materials Inc., 982 F. Supp. 2d 714 (W.D. Tex. 2013). “3d at 314 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1401 (a)) (emphasis added). After an analysis of all the private and public interest factors, the Court finds Ballenger, Sr.”
Transunion Corp. & Union Indus., Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc., 811 F.2d 127 (2d Cir. 1987). “1977) (suggesting a Lanham Act infringement claim might be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, thought the Act contains a special venue provision, 15 U.”
DirecTV, Inc. v. EQ Stuff, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (C.D. Cal. 2002). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1401 (a). B. Analysis 7 Under § 1404(a), the district court has discretion “to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.”
Messinger v. United Canso Oil & Gas Ltd., 80 F.R.D. 730 (D. Conn. 1978). “1 Similarly, venue is established wherever the corporation, as a plaintiff, “might have sued the same defendants,” 28 U.S.C. § 1401 . 2 *735 2. Citizenship of Catawba.”
Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 1997). “On April 14, 1995, the district court entered an order denying the motion to remand, granting the motion to transfer, and ordering the case transferred to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1401 (a). On May 15,1995, the City served the State Officers with…”
Hollander v. Etymotic Rsch., Inc., 726 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “’s Motion for Reconsideration to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1401 (a) (Doc. 31); Plaintiff/Relator Bentley Hollander’s Response in Opposition thereto (Doc.”
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.