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.
Well obviously if you take the route my grandparents did from Waco to Marshall on their honeymoon in 1929 it’s clearly not more convenient – but I doubt that was Judge Albright’s analysis
No, not the traffic. In the course of explaining why the last post should be v.4, I pulled some statistics quantifying the trend of cases filed in Waco being transferred to Austin.
Chip & Joanna may be opening a hotel in downtown Waco, but the parties
Had a great time with a friend from California at our college marching band reunion this weekend. But when he went home, this case didn’t go with him.
We read opinions in other cases to better understand the rationale for a decision. This opinion provides insight into when cases filled in Waco will be transferred to Austin.
Ever wonder how venue works in qui tam cases? This order in an EDTX case provides a good overview of the standards.