Legal Opinion
Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Co., Inc. v. Born
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 30, 1995No. 94 Civ. 6759 (DAB)PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BATTS, District Judge.
Defendants move, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to transfer venue to the Southern District of California. In the alternative, Defendants move to dismiss “in the interests of justice,” arguing that a tort action currently pending in the Superior Court of California between Plaintiff and Defendants renders this contract action duplicative. For the following reasons, the motion to transfer is denied, and the motion to stay is granted.
I. Background
In 1982, Jamie E. and Randall A. Born (the “Borns”) became franchisees of Háagen-Dazs and began operating a store in Orange…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Golden Eagle Insurance Company v. Travelers CompaniesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- American Standard, Inc. v. Oakfabco, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 2007
- Lighton Indus., Inc. v. Allied World Nat'l Assurance Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 2018
- Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Third Dimension (3D) Semiconductor, Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 2008
- Cadle Co. v. Bankers Federal Savings FSBDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.