Design v. Scienstry, Inc.

10 Citing cases

  1. Dubose v. United States

    Civil Action 23-CV-4895 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024)

    Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” See Danziger & De Llano, LLP v. Morgan Verkamp LLC, 948 F.3d 124, 132 (3d Cir. 2020) (noting that a district court may transfer a case pursuant to a party's request or sua sponte) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404, 1406) (add'l citations omitted); Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fogel, 656 F.3d 167, 171 (3d Cir. 2011) (recognizing sua sponte transfer pursuant to § 1404(a)); see also Bent Glass Design v. Scienstry, Inc., No. 13-4282, 2014 WL 550548, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014) (noting that “a district court may upon motion or sua sponte dismiss or transfer a civil action to any other district in the interest of justice and/or for the convenience of parties and witnesses”) (citations omitted); Schott v. Doe, No. 05-1730, 2007 WL 539645, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2007) (transferring case sua sponte pursuant to § 1404(a)) (citing Robinson v. Town of Madison, 752 F.Supp. 842, 846 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (“A court's authority to transfer cases under § 1404(a) does not depend upon the motion, stipulation or consent of the parties to the litigation.”))

  2. Mazzola v. Prime EFS, LLC

    2:20-cv-13387 (BRM) (ESK) (D.N.J. Sep. 24, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    24, 132 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 1406(a)); Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Fogel, 656 F.3d 167, 180 (3d Cir. 2011) (recognizing sua sponte transfers); Lafferty v. Gito St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2007) (providing that “Section 1404(a) transfers are discretionary determinations made for the convenience of the parties”) (emphasis added). See, e.g., Ziemkiewicz v. R+L Carriers, Inc., Civ. A. No. 12-1923, 2013 WL 505798, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 8, 2013) (“Because this Court has jurisdiction and venue is proper, this Court has the authority to sua sponte transfer this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).”); Meyers v. Heffernan, Civ. A. No. 10-212, 2012 WL 1133732, at *5 (D. Del. Mar. 29, 2012) (“A Court's authority to transfer cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not depend upon a motion, stipulation, or consent of parties to the litigation.”); Bent Glass Design v. Scienstry, Inc., Civ. A. No. 13-4282, 2014 WL 550548, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014) (“[W]hile venue is initially reliant on a plaintiff's preference as reflected in the pleadings, a district court may upon motion or sua sponte dismiss or transfer a civil action to any other district in the interest of justice and/or for the convenience of parties and witnesses.”); Bank Express Int'l v. Kang, 265 F.Supp.2d 497, 507 n.12 (E.D. Pa. 2003)

  3. Robinson v. Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP

    Civil Action 21-CV-2875 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 13, 2021)

    Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” See Danziger & De Llano, LLP v. Morgan Verkamp LLC, 948 F.3d 124, 132 (3d Cir. 2020) (noting that a district court may transfer a case pursuant to a party's request or sua sponte) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404, 1406); Arnica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fogel, 656 F.3d 167, 171 (3d Cir. 2011) (recognizing sua sponte transfer pursuant to § 1404(a)); see also Bent Glass Design v. Scienstry, Inc., Civ. A. No. 13-4282, 2014 WL 550548, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014) (noting that “a district court may upon motion or sua sponte dismiss or transfer a civil action to any other district in the interest of justice and/or for the convenience of parties and witnesses”); Schott v. Doe, Civ. A. No. 05-1730, 2007 WL 539645, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 4 2007) (transferring case sua sponte pursuant to § 1404(a)) (citing Robinson v. Town of Madison, 752 F.Supp. 842, 846 (N.D. 111.1990) (“A court's authority to transfer cases under § 1404(a) does not depend upon the motion, stipulation or consent of the parties to the litigation.”)); Bank Express Int'l v. Kang, 265 F.Supp.2d 497, 507 n.12 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (transferring venue under § 1404(a) sua sponte).

  4. Hotel Oakland Assocs. v. Doyle Real Estate Advisors, LLC

    Civil Action 21-0004 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 13, 2021)

    District courts have frequently exercised their discretion to do so. See, e.g. Minter v. Acme Mkts., No. 20-1087, 2020 WL 1450860, at *2-3 (E.D. Pa. March 25, 2020) (transferring case pursuant to Section 1404(a) sua sponte); Bent Glass Design c. Scienstry, Inc., No. 13-4282, 2014 WL 550548, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014) (“[W]hile venue is initially reliant on a plaintiff's preference as reflected in the pleadings, a district court may upon motion or sua sponte dismiss or transfer a civil action to any other district in the interest of justice and/or for the convenience of parties and witnesses.” A

  5. Tang v. Eastman Kodak Co.

    Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-10462-FLW-ZNQ (D.N.J. May. 27, 2021)   Cited 7 times

    Nevertheless, district courts have frequently exercised such authority. See, e.g., Meyers v. Heffernan, No. 10-212, 2012 WL 1133732, at *5 (D. Del. Mar. 29, 2012) ("A Court's authority to transfer cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not depend upon a motion, stipulation, or consent of parties to the litigation."); Ziemkiewicz v. R+L Carriers, Inc., No. 12-1923, 2013 WL 505798, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 8, 2013) ("Because this Court has jurisdiction and venue is proper, this Court has the authority to sua sponte transfer this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)."); Bank Express Int'l v. Kang, 265 F. Supp. 2d 497, 507 n.12 (E.D. Pa. 2003) ("Although no party has requested it, we may transfer venue under § 1404(a) sua sponte."); Bent Glass Design v. Scienstry, Inc., No. 13-4282, 2014 WL 550548, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014) ("[W]hile venue is initially reliant on a plaintiff's preference as reflected in the pleadings, a district court may upon motion or sua sponte dismiss or transfer a civil action to any other district in the interest of justice and/or for the convenience of parties and witnesses."). Based on that authority, under the transfer statute, I may transfer a case to a venue discussed in the parties' briefings but not specifically requested by the movant in its motion.

  6. Crossroads Techs., Inc. v. Achieve Servs. Holdings

    Case No. 19-cv-0955 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    These facts coupled with the fact that the Defendants were regularly transmitting data and information to servers located and maintain in Pennsylvania is sufficient to establish that the Defendants purposefully directed activities to the forum. Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, *1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (A passive website is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, but an interactive site through which a defendant conducts business with forum residents is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction); Bent Glass Design v. Scienstry, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17645 11, *13 (2014) (numerous communication during negotiations that were not isolated or sporadic that were frequent and exemplify a substantial and continuous relationship between the parties support a finding of specific jurisdiction).

  7. Post Acute Med., LLC v. LeBlanc

    1:19-cv-1137 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 16, 2019)

    In closing, PAM asserts, even if Texas would be a more "at home" forum for Defendants, such a view does not render Pennsylvania an improper venue. (Doc. 25 at 12 (citing McCraw v. GlaxoSmithKline, No. 12-2119, 2014 WL 211343, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2014); Bent Glass Design v. Scienstry, Inc., Civ. No. 13-4282, 2014 WL 550548 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014); Constr. Specialties, Inc. v. Ed Flume Bldg. Specialties, Ltd., 05-CV-1863, 2006 WL 42181, *5 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2006)). We disagree.

  8. Jolly v. Mitchel

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-CV-2208 (E.D. Pa. May. 24, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Decker v. Dyson, 165 F. App'x 951, 954 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank of S.C., 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir.1987) (ruling that a district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order sua sponte a transfer under § 1406); see also Wright v. Pennsylvania Dept't of Corr., Civ. A. No. 14-1678, 2015 WL 401685, *2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2015) )"A District Court is granted discretion to sua sponte transfer cases by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides in relevant part that '[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought [or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.]'") (citations omitted); Bent Glass Design v. Scienstry, Inc., Civ. A. No. 13-4282, 2014 WL 550548, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014) ("[W]hile venue is initially reliant on a plaintiff's preference as reflected in the pleadings, a district court may upon motion or sua sponte dismiss or transfer a civil action to any other district in the interest of justice and/or for the convenience of parties and witnesses."); Jolly v. Faucett, Civ. A. No. 06-3286, 2007 WL 137833, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2007) ("[T]he Court's independent analysis reveals that venue is not proper in this District, and thus transfer is warranted under section 1406(a). . . ."); QRG, Ltd. v. Nartron Corp., Civ. A. No. 06-500, 2006 WL 2583626, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 7, 2006) ("The parties do not raise the issue of venue, but I raise it sua sponte, since venue is not proper in this district."). The Court finds in the interest of justice that the remaining claims should be transferred to the Northern District of New York.

  9. PSI Water Sys., Inc. v. Robuschi U.S., Inc.

    2015 DNH 119 (D.N.H. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, the law on this point favors ENCON. In Bent Glass Design v. Scienstry, Inc., Civ. No. 13-4282, 2014 WL 550548 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014), a buyer sued a seller and the seller moved to transfer venue based upon a forum selection clause that was included in a set of terms and conditions that was transmitted to the buyer independently from any of the documents that constituted the offer and acceptance that formed the contract between the parties. In that case, the buyer argued that its contract with the seller was formed when it sent the seller a purchase order in response to a price quotation.

  10. Just B Method, LLC v. BSCPR, LP

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1516 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2014)   Cited 4 times
    In Just B Method, LLC v. BSCPR, LP, No. 14-cv-1516, 2014 WL 5285634 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 14, 2014), the non-signatory plaintiff was suing for breach of an obligation to provide commissions to the signatory LLC of which the plaintiff was the sole member.

    Under Pennsylvania law, which is the relevant state law, "contract formation requires: (1) a mutual manifestation of an intention to be bound, (2) terms sufficiently definite to be enforced, and (3) consideration." Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 560 F.3d 156, 160, (3d Cir. 2009); Bent Glass Design v. Scienstry, Inc., 2014 WL 550548, at *9, slip op. (E.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2014) (citing Feldman v. Comm. College of Allegheny, 85 F.App'x 821, 827 (3d Cir. 2004)). Here, the facts as pled by Plaintiffs, establish that Just b and The Bellevue agreed that Just b would provide Pilates instruction at The Sporting Club in exchange for remuneration, a studio, and other considerations, for a term of one year, which could be renewed by mutual consent.