Moneycat LTD v. Paypal Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Simpson v. William Dirks Dameron, LLC

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-231 (D. Del. May. 22, 2018)

    The court granted defendant's motion to transfer venue and gave the plaintiff's forum preference less deference because "whatever marginal additional inconvenience will be inflicted on [plaintiff] by having to litigate in California is outweighed by transferring this case to the place where the bulk of the evidence exists."MoneyCat Ltd v. PayPal, Inc., No. 13-1358, 2014 WL 2042699 at *4 (D. Del. May 15, 2014) (citing In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Id.

  2. Nottenkamper v. Modany

    Civil Action No. 14-672-GMS (D. Del. Apr. 29, 2015)   Cited 3 times

    Although perhaps the Defendants could have sought transfer sooner, the court is not convinced that the benefits of transfer have been lost—interests in efficiency can be attained, even still. See MoneyCat Ltd v. PayPal Inc., No. 13-1358, 2014 WL 2042699, at *3 (D. Del. May 15, 2014) ("Thus, while the transfer motion could have been filed earlier, it is not so late that transfer will substantially delay the litigation of this matter.") The case remains in its infancy: the Defendants have not yet answered the Complaint, no scheduling order has been entered, and no formal discovery has been conducted. It cannot be said that the transfer would substantially delay the litigation in this matter. Therefore, the Defendants' timing in filing the motion to transfer was not improper. Practical considerations weigh strongly in favor of transfer.