Notes of Decisions
Freedman v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 271 (D.D.C. 2015).
· cites it 18× “District Court for the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1631 .”
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988).
· cites it 4× “§ 1404 (a) or to dismiss the case for improper venue under 28 U. S. C. § 1406 . The District Court denied the motion.”
Tobias Chavez v. Dole Food Co. Inc, 836 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir. 2016).
· cites it 3× “Following the plaintiffs’ lead, it focused on the federal statute governing transfer of venue, 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a), which states that if a district court concludes that a plaintiff has sued “in the wrong division or district,” the district court “shall dismiss, or if it be in…”
In Re: Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
· cites it 3× “Accordingly, the court’s decision refusing transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a)‘was an abuse of discretion.”
Williams v. GEICO CORP., 792 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2011).
· cites it 6× “For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the motion to dismiss and instead will transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). BACKGROUND I. Factual Background Williams worked as a systems…”
Fam v. Bank of Am. NA (USA), 236 F. Supp. 3d 397 (D.D.C. 2017).
· cites it 6× “LEGAL STANDARD Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a party to move to dismiss a case for “improper venue.”
Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “” The court then correctly noted that, “[u]nder these circumstances, claims against the Virginia Defendants could be severed and transferred to Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) & (3) .”
Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Sys., Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 916 (E.D. Va. 2017).
· cites it 5× “In the wake of these decisions, venue for this suit does not properly lie in the Eastern District of Virginia, and the interests of justice require that this action be transferred to the District of Connecticut pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Symbology…”
George Jumara & Evangelina Jumara, H/w v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3rd Cir. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Although the district court in effect disposed of the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (for improper venue), we conclude that, because venue was actually proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the case could not be dismissed pursuant to that provision.”
Eggleton v. Plasser & Theurer Exp. Von Bahnbaumaschinen Gesellschaft, MBH, 495 F.3d 582 (8th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 8× “That court found that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Plasser, and it transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska ("Nebraska district court") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). After the transfer, Plasser moved the Nebraska district…”
Lafferty v. St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72 (3rd Cir. 2007).
· cites it 4× “We deal with a deceptively simple issue: which filing date applies for statute of limitations purposes when a federal district court transfers venue to another district under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a)? Here, a federal district court in New Jersey with diversity jurisdiction…”
Doe 1 v. Aol LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 4× “District Court Order Based on the forum selection clause, AOL moved to dismiss the action for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) ("Rule 12(b)(3)"), or, alternatively, to transfer venue to the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant…”
Phillips v. Reed Grp., Ltd., 955 F. Supp. 2d 201 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Defendants moved to transfer this action to district court in the District of Colorado under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 and 28 U.S.C. § 1404 . Having found that venue is proper in this district under 28 U.”
Database Am., Inc. v. Bellsouth Advert. & Publ'g Corp., 825 F. Supp. 1216 (D.N.J. 1993).
· cites it 8× “1195, transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). 1 For the reasons that follow, the motion for reconsideration is denied.”
In Re: Rolls Royce Corp., 775 F.3d 671 (5th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Nor could the court transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a), since that statute allows transfer only when the action was brought “in the wrong division or district,” 28 U.”
In Re Howmedica Osteonics Corp., 867 F.3d 390 (3rd Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Because neither Nordyke nor Howmedica now seeks to enforce the Michigan forum-selection clause, and because venue objections are waivable, even when premised on a forum-selection clause, see 28 U.”
WorldCare Ltd. Corp. v. World Ins. Co., 767 F. Supp. 2d 341 (D. Conn. 2011).
· cites it 10× “However, cognizant of World’s desire to transfer the case to the District of Nebraska, the Court will construe its motion to transfer as one “in the interest of justice” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a) (allowing transfer “in the interest of justice” when venue is improper).”
Burnett v. New York Cent. R.R., 380 U.S. 424 (1965).
· cites it 6× “Thus a federal statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1406 (a), allows a district court "of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district .”
James v. Verizon Servs. Corp., 639 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 5× “When a plaintiff files an action in the wrong district, 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a) directs the court to “dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case” to the proper venue.”
In Re: Micron Tech., Inc., 875 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
· cites it 3× “, petitions for a writ of mandamus to set aside the district court’s denial of Micron’s motion, made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a), to dismiss or to transfer the case for improper venue.”
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379 (1953).
· cites it 6× “The question here is whether mandamus is an appropriate remedy to vacate a severance and transfer order entered by a district judge on the ground of improper venue, under 28 U. S. C. § 1406 (a). [1] *380 This case arises out of a treble damage action brought by petitioner, an…”
Targetsmart Holdings, LLC v. Ghp Advisors, LLC, 366 F. Supp. 3d 195 (D.D.C. 2019).
· cites it 5× “Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a) allows me to "transfer [a] case to any district or division in which it could have been brought" if it "lay[s] venue in the wrong division or district" and transfer is "in the interest of justice.”
Alberto Kreimerman v. Casa Veerkamp, S.A. De C.V., 22 F.3d 634 (5th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 5× “65 The district court thus should have transferred the case to the McAllen division under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a), which — in the interest of justice — allows a case to be transferred “to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”
Pugh v. Arrow Elec., Inc., 304 F. Supp. 2d 890 (N.D. Tex. 2003).
· cites it 16× “Rule 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). 1 Plaintiff filed a response May 14, 2003, arguing that venue was proper or, alternatively, seeking a transfer under 28 U.”
Flynn v. Greg Anthony Constr. Co., 95 F. App'x 726 (6th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 4× “District Court should have transferred the claims against all of the Defendants to the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 , we REVERSE and REMAND to the Southern District of Ohio for consideration of Plaintiffs’ claims against Pezzo.”
Capital Bank Int'l Ltd. v. Citigroup, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2003).
· cites it 5× “The Court Transfers this Action to the District of Delaware In its opposition briefs, the plaintiff asks that the court transfer this action to the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a) if it concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over defendants Citigroup and…”
Lomanno v. Black, 285 F. Supp. 2d 637 (E.D. Pa. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Since the Court is transferring this case to the Eastern District of Virginia, it will decline to decide the personal jurisdiction questions raised by the Individual Defendants.”
In Re: Zte (Usa) Inc., 890 F.3d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “("ZTE USA") petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to dismiss this case for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). See Am. GNC Corp. v.”
Nationwide Bi-Weekly Admin., Inc. v. Belo Corp., 512 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Before the court ruled on Belo’s motion, Nationwide moved to trans *140 fer the case to the Northern District of Texas, where it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Belo.”
Thompson v. Greenwood, 507 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 7× “The Trustee argued that a proper interpretation of the applicable venue statutes left the judge *418 with no discretion to retain the cases, and that the court was required either to dismiss or transfer the cases under the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1406 . The decisions of…”
Darby v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 231 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2002).
· cites it 3× “When a plaintiff files an action in the wrong district, 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a) directs courts to “dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case” to the proper venue.”
Carolyn Lazar v. Mark Kroncke, 862 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 3× “The district court dismissed Lazar’s SAACC on the grounds that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the Estate and ordered the case transferred to the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). After the case was transferred to the District of Arizona, the district…”
Bill Phillips v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 874 F.2d 984 (5th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 5× “§ 1404 (a) 1 or 28 U.S. C. § 1406(a). 2 The case was received by the federal court in New Orleans on October 5, 1987.”
Slaby v. Holder, 901 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2012).
· cites it 3× “” See 28 U.S.C § 1406(a). The defendant ruges the Court to dismiss the Complaint “because it is overwhelmingly clear that the case should have been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia” and “because Plaintiff should have reasonably foreseen that the forum in which he was…”
Cormier v. Fisher, 404 F. Supp. 2d 357 (D. Me. 2005).
· cites it 7× “Wisely, however, they elected to hedge their bet and request that if this Court finds an absence of personal jurisdiction, transfer be made to the Western District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1406(a). Pis. ’ Alt. Mot. to Change Venue or Retain Venue (Docket # 14)(Pls.”
In Re Lazaro, 128 B.R. 168 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1991).
· cites it 4×
In Re Petrie, 142 B.R. 404 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1992).
· cites it 5×
In Re Pick, 95 B.R. 712 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1989).
· cites it 4×
In Re Waits, 70 B.R. 591 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987).
· cites it 3×
Brian Chu, M.D., James R. Gross, D.O., Khadijah Hamdallah, M.D., Staley Jackson, M.D., & Gregory Lower, D.O. v. The United States, 773 F.2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Shaw v. Boyd, 658 F. Supp. 89 (E.D. Pa. 1987).
· cites it 3×
In Re Blagg, 215 B.R. 79 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1997).
· cites it 3×
Smith v. Doe, 991 F. Supp. 781 (E.D. La. 1998).
· cites it 2×
Rothman, 219 Ct. Cl. 595 (Ct. Cl. 1979).
· cites it 2×
Alaska Airlines v. United States, 399 F. Supp. 906 (N.D. Cal. 1975).
· cites it 3× “He has filed none, and that of itself is a complete waiver under 28 U.S. C. § 1406(b). The court can reach no other conclusion but that: It is hereby ordered that all of the cases arising out of the Alaska air crash of September 4, 1971, and now pending in the Northern District…”
United States v. Kahane, 396 F. Supp. 687 (E.D.N.Y 1975).
“See 28 U. S.C. § 1406(b). Defendant is being held in a Community Treatment Center in Manhattan, across the river from this courthouse, because the Eastern District holds no comparable federal institution.”
Aqeel (M.D. Tenn. 2026).
· cites it 11×
Aqeel (D. Mass. 2026).
· cites it 11×
Badov (N.D. Tex. 2025).
· cites it 6×
Janosky (E.D. Ky. 2025).
· cites it 6×
Hammond (D. Maryland 2025).
· cites it 6×
Valine (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 5×
Solo (S.D.W. Va 2026).
· cites it 5×
Wilson (D. Maryland 2025).
· cites it 4×
Wilson (D.S.C. 2025).
· cites it 4×
Thomas (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 4×
Abler (S.D. Fla. 2025).
· cites it 4×
Abler (M.D. Fla. 2025).
· cites it 4×
Abler (M.D. Fla. 2025).
· cites it 4×
Dosso (W.D. Va. 2025).
· cites it 4×
Dosso (N.D.W. Va. 2025).
· cites it 4×
Greene (W.D. Ark. 2026).
· cites it 4×
Anaya (E.D. Va. 2026).
· cites it 4×
Bellamy (D.S.C. 2026).
· cites it 4×
Bellamy (N.D. Ohio 2026).
· cites it 4×
Dowling (S.D. Tex. 2026).
· cites it 4×
Aberu (D. Maryland 2026).
· cites it 4×
Downling (S.D. Tex. 2026).
· cites it 4×
Flores (N.D. Ala. 2026).
· cites it 4×
Jolly (E.D. Pa. 2026).
· cites it 4×
Cellura (D. Nev. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Pakuja (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Haley (W.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Reinauer (N.D. Ill. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Reinauer (M.D. Fla. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Thompson (D. Minnesota 2025).
· cites it 3×
Adams (S.D. Fla. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Adam (D. Minnesota 2025).
· cites it 3×
Badjie (E.D. Mich. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Adam (N.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Cellura (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Young (E.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Shaikh (D.N.J. 2025).
· cites it 3×
Brenner (W.D. Wash. 2026).
· cites it 3×
Summa (W.D.N.Y. 2026).
· cites it 3×
Kornegay (D. Maryland 2026).
· cites it 3×
Moore (D. Maryland 2026).
· cites it 3×
Reaves (W.D. Va. 2026).
· cites it 3×
Coulter (D. Utah 2026).
· cites it 3×
Jordan (N.D. Ga. 2026).
· cites it 3×
Musk (C.D. Ill. 2026).
· cites it 3×
Buttars (D. Idaho 2026).
· cites it 3×
Buttars (D. Utah 2026).
· cites it 3×
Waters (N.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 2×
v. Veal (S.D. Ga. 2022).
· cites it 2×
Fan (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Fennell (D. Maryland 2025).
· cites it 2×
Bock (D. Maryland 2025).
· cites it 2×
Shaw (N.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Brown (E.D. La. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Franklin (W.D. Mich. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Cortina (E.D. Cal. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Mace (E.D. Va. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Hester (N.D. Tex. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Reyes (N.D. Okla. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Brown (M.D. La. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Reyes (W.D. Okla. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Franklin (N.D. Ind. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Sanders (E.D.N.Y 2025).
· cites it 2×
Cohn (W.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Cohn (N.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Sanders (N.D. Ind. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Valine (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Mace (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Sprague (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Presidential Candidate No. P60005535 aka Ronald Satish Emrit, Presidential Comm./Political Action Comm./Separate Segregated Fund No. C00569897, d/b/a United Emrits of Am. v. Erin Burnett Outfront of Cable News Network (CNN), The Hypothetical Erin Burnett for President 2028 Campaign, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Est. of Alexei Navalny, Maria Chemiavska, Darya Ignateva, Kateryna Olokoba, Int'l Court of Just. of the Hague, Rachel Barreiro Garcia, Est. of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sabine Aisha Jules, Yanick Rachel Emrit, Edna Carrasco, Ana Gomez, Alina Alvarez, Marena Linares, Adriana Francesca Lima (D.N.H. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Bondi (D.N.M. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Bondi (D.N.M. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Rusk (W.D. Wash. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Rowe (S.D. Ga. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Rowe (M.D. Ga. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Bondi (W.D. Tex. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Bondi (W.D. Tex. 2025).
· cites it 2×
Martin (W.D.N.Y. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Martin (N.D.N.Y. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Jordan (N.D. Ga. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Gilot (E.D.N.Y 2026).
· cites it 2×
Bondi (S.D. Fla. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Barnes (M.D. Tenn. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Hooge (D. Utah 2026).
· cites it 2×
Doe (W.D. Mo. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Hansen (D. Idaho 2026).
· cites it 2×
Korby (D. Minnesota 2026).
· cites it 2×
Doe (D. Maryland 2026).
· cites it 2×
Parks (E.D. Va. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Anderson (D. Maryland 2026).
· cites it 2×
Adams (S.D. Fla. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Korby (E.D. Pa. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Gaikwad (D. Mass. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Philips (W.D.N.C. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Giles (E.D. Mo. 2026).
· cites it 2×
Frunzi, 216 Ct. Cl. 439 (Ct. Cl. 1978).
Yalcin Ayasli v. Sezgin Baran Korkmaz, Kamil Feridun Ozkaraman, Fatih Akol, SBK Holdings A.S., SBK Holdings, USA, Inc., Bugaraj Elektronik Ticaret ve Bilisim Hizmetleri A.S., & Mega Varlik Yonetim, A.S., 2020 DNH 171P (D.N.H. 2020).
Jones (D. Maryland 2025).
Walz (D. Minnesota 2025).
Baiting Jiang, Lanjiao Qin, & Does 1 to 100 v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC, NBCUniversal Media, Inc., Brian L. Roberts, Comcast Corp., KNTV Television LLC, Candice Nguyen, Jeremy Carroll, Michael Bott, Anthony Rutanashoodech, Michael Horn, Mark Villarreal, Alex Bozovic, Hongyu Yang, Weixia Dong, Yushun Yang, Rajakumar Sobers, Quan He, Bay Area Homeowners Network, Xionghong Dou, Zihui Chen, Feng Yi, Yijian Shi, & Does 1–100 (W.D. Wis. 2026).
Bondi (D. Minnesota 2026).
Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Elec., Co., Ltd., Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., & Avnet, Inc.; Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., Micron Semiconductor Prods. Inc., Micron Tech. Texas LLC, & Avnet, Inc. (D. Del. 2026).
Macon (D. Minnesota 2026).
Aberu (D. Maryland 2026).
Netlist, Inc. v. Samsung Elec., Co., Ltd., Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., & Avnet, Inc.; Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., Micron Semiconductor Prods. Inc., Micron Tech. Texas LLC, & Avnet, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2026).
Davidson, 219 Ct. Cl. 666 (Ct. Cl. 1979).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) — 98 cases
Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Sys., Inc., 282 F. Supp. 3d 916 (E.D. Va. 2017).
“In the wake of these decisions, venue for this suit does not properly lie in the Eastern District of Virginia, and the interests of justice require that this action be transferred to the District of Connecticut pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Symbology…”
Cormier v. Fisher, 404 F. Supp. 2d 357 (D. Me. 2005).
“Wisely, however, they elected to hedge their bet and request that if this Court finds an absence of personal jurisdiction, transfer be made to the Western District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1406(a). Pis. ’ Alt. Mot. to Change Venue or Retain Venue (Docket # 14)(Pls.”
Slaby v. Holder, 901 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2012).
“” See 28 U.S.C § 1406(a). The defendant ruges the Court to dismiss the Complaint “because it is overwhelmingly clear that the case should have been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia” and “because Plaintiff should have reasonably foreseen that the forum in which he was…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1406(b) — 2 cases
United States v. Kahane, 396 F. Supp. 687 (E.D.N.Y 1975).
“See 28 U. S.C. § 1406(b). Defendant is being held in a Community Treatment Center in Manhattan, across the river from this courthouse, because the Eastern District holds no comparable federal institution.”
Alaska Airlines v. United States, 399 F. Supp. 906 (N.D. Cal. 1975).
“He has filed none, and that of itself is a complete waiver under 28 U.S. C. § 1406(b). The court can reach no other conclusion but that: It is hereby ordered that all of the cases arising out of the Alaska air crash of September 4, 1971, and now pending in the Northern District…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1406(c) — 1 case
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.