Motion to Dismiss Raises Personal Jurisdiction, Venue and Convenience

On the surface, it just says it’s a ruling on a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to transfer venue, but under that plain exterior lurks  a detailed analysis of the defenses of personal jurisdiction (which is not, repeat NOT what you were taught in law school) , improper venue under  the general venue statute (and how to throw it away), and a motion to transfer under Section 1404.

So while it’s not exactly everything you need to know about these motions – it’s not the Magna Charta of venue law as Judge Heartfield once (well, maybe more than once) described his magnus opus Mohamed v Mazda, it’s still a thorough and useful recitation of the applicable standards.

Motion to Remand Granted

Many years ago when I was asked to prepare my first federal update paper, I called my federal courts professor from law school and asked him what people want to hear in a federal update.  He didn’t hesitate.  “Removal and remand.”  Why?  “Most lawyers don’t know anything about federal court and don’t want to be there.  The thing they want to know is how to get out.” So it’s always good to keep a few recent decisions on motions to remand handy, in case you fall into that category.  This recent opinion by Judge Mazzant fits the bill nicely, as it addresses a requirement few think about.

Equitable Remedies Under Ye Old Lanhame Acte

I’m sorry – I just can’t hear about a court “sitting in equity” without wondering whether everyone needs to reach in their briefcase and find their wigs.  (I realize a few may already have them on, and guys, your secret – such as it is – is safe with me). That’s probably not quite what it looked like in Judge Mazzant’s courtroom in Sherman when he pressed “enter” to paste his electronic signature on the opinion in this interesting Lanham Act case dealing with remedies. But a good exposition of the law is always welcome, so let’s see what happened here.