This order resolved the dispute over the applicability of the first to file rule to a case where there was an issue regarding personal jurisdiction.
After waving off an argument under § 1391(d), Judge Gilstrap granted limited venue discovery.
Ever wondered what Judge Albright thinks about venue discovery? Readers of this order understand the need to trust, but verify.
Yes, they do this in Waco too.
The Court ordered briefing on agency relationships, whether a person was present, and whether a machine could be an agent. Basically, Season 1 of Picard.
After going through the relevant factors and facts, Judge Gilstrap set forth the applicable test and concluded that the standard for transfer was not met.
A “Catch-22” is defined as a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions. This is an example.
A defendant asserting a motion to transfer venue must show that the transferee district is clearly more convenient. Here, the court found that showing was not made
This issue rarely comes up, especially in this flea-flicker-ish context, but this order provides a useful template for when it does.
I recently posted that Judge Albright granted Apple’s alternative request for a transfer to WDTX-Austin after denying its request to NDCA. Apple has mandamused that agreed transfer now, but says it’s really Judge Gilstrap’s fault.