It’s always interesting to see where courts are on the “stream of commerce” test when addressing personal jurisdiction issues. Let’s see where we are this month.
Venue motions are usually filed before the scheduling conference so there’s no mechanism for conducting discovery on them. This order indicates what an appropriate schedule might look like.
I thought EDTX caselaw on the issue of discovery into unaccused products was pretty clear, but apparently another case was required.
The issue here was whether a foreign party would be prohibited from retaining as a consultant an attorney.
This case involves a preschool teacher who alleged she was discharged due to her disability. Defendant sought partial summary judgment on damages due to to her alleged failure to mitigate.
The EDTX defendant won the race to the courthouse by a day, filing a dec action in Houston. But the Houston judge dismissed the case in favor of the EDTX action. So what does EDTX do with the first to file/1404 motion to transfer to Houston now?
After I noticed this morning that last week Judge Gilstrap issued two orders on the same day on the same subject with opposite results, I noticed that Judge Barbara Lynn of the NDTX did the same thing this week – but on 285 motions. Hmm…
The Court overruled the Plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report recommending that summary judgment of noninfringement be granted.
Same day, same subject, same law, but different facts that led Judge Gilstrap to grant one motion to transfer based on a provision in a prior agreement, but deny the other.
FRCP 12(c) motions are not granted often, but this recent decision from Marshall explains when they can be.