§

Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Inst., Inc.

891 F. Supp. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)
Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Inst., Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Millennium, L.P. v. Dakota Imaging, Inc.

    03 Civ. 1838 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2003)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that defendant's attendance at a trade show to solicit business, which led to the formation of a contract outside the forum, was sufficient to establish minimum contacts

    Although Millennium benefits from a favorable construction of its submissions in a motion pursuant to Rule 12, it also bears the burden of proving a prima facie case for jurisdiction over Dakota in order to survive a motion to dismiss. Dimensional, 42 F. Supp.2d at 317; Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Inst., Inc., 891 F. Supp. 175, 178 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Nat'l Cathode Corp. v. The Mexus Co., 855 F. Supp. 644, 646 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). Millennium, however, will "be found to have met [its] burden even if the moving party makes contrary allegations that place in dispute the factual basis of [its] prima facie case."

  2. INTERNATIONAL SEC. EXCH. v. CHICAGO BD. OPTIONS EXCH

    06 Civ. 13445 (RMB) (THK) (S.D.N.Y. May. 24, 2007)   Cited 5 times

    As to the public interest factors, a court should consider the transferee court's familiarity with the governing law, as well as trial efficiency and the interests of justice. See Hummingbird USA, Inc. v. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp., No. 06 Civ. 7672 (LTS) (GWG), 2007 WL 163111, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2007) (citing Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Instit., Inc., 891 F. Supp. 175, 183 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)); accord Cook v. UBS Financial Servs., Inc., No. 05 Civ. 8842 (SHS), 2006 WL 760284, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2006); Mears v. Montgomery, No. 02 Civ. 0407 (BSJ) (MHD), 2004 WL 964093, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2004). These factors need not be accorded equal weight, and a court may consider other factors as well. Hummingbird USA, 2007 WL 163111, at *2 (citing Malone v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 2 F. Supp. 2d 545, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)).

  3. Hsin Ten Enter. USA, Inc. v. Clark Enters.

    138 F. Supp. 2d 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 143 times
    Holding that personal jurisdiction was warranted where the claim arose from the defendant's use and sale of the offending product, which was caused “at least in part” by the Defendant's use of the offending trademark on its website but also because of the presence of representatives and affiliates in New York

    Under section 1391(b)(2), venue is proper for a trademark infringement claim in each jurisdiction where infringement is properly alleged to have occurred. See Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Inst., Inc., 891 F. Supp. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). To determine in which district events "giving rise to the claim occurred," a court must first identify the operative facts supporting the claim.

  4. HSIN TEN ENTERP. USA, INC. v. CLARK ENTERP.

    00 CIV. 5878 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2000)

    Under section 1391(b)(2), venue is proper for a trademark infringement claim in each jurisdiction where infringement is properly alleged to have occurred. See Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Inst., Inc., 891 F. Supp. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). To determine in which district events "giving rise to the claim occurred," a court must first identify the operative facts supporting the claim.

  5. Aerotel Ltd. v. Sprint Corp.

    100 F. Supp. 2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 127 times
    Holding that, with respect to claims that a patent is invalid and unenforceable, the locus of operative facts factor is "not geographically dependent"

    Here, the allegation that Sprint Communications and Sprint Spectrum are mere departments of Sprint Corporation remains conclusory despite the evidence of overlapping management and the fact that any doubts are to be resolved in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Inst., Inc., 891 F. Supp. 175, 178 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) However, "[i]n deciding a pretrial motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction a district court has considerable procedural leeway."

  6. Pall Corp. v. PTI Technologies, Inc.

    992 F. Supp. 196 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 48 times
    Noting that this Circuit favors that related claims be resolved in the same forum in consideration of more efficient pretrial discovery, saving witnesses time and money with respect to pretrial proceedings and trial, and avoiding duplicative and potentially inconsistent litigation.

    "Courts generally view the convenience of witnesses as the single most important factor in the balance." Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Institute, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 175, 183 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (citations omitted). "However, to prove that this element supports its position, the movant must supply an affidavit identifying witnesses and the probable subject matter of their testimony."