Legal Opinion
Bindman v. MH Sub I, LLC
District Court, N.D. California
Decided February 28, 2020No. 3:19-cv-02614Unknown
1Opinion
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 BORIS BINDMAN, Case No. 19-cv-02614-SI 6 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 7 v. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION 8 MH SUB I, LLC, et al., TO STAY AS MOOT 9 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 48 10 11 Currently before the Court is defendant’s motion to transfer venue to the Central District of 12 California, or alternatively stay the action pending appeal. Dkt. No. 48. Pursuant to Civil Local 13 Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and hereby 14 VACATES…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Stanton v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- R.A. Argueta, Husband Mary Argueta, Wife Grupo Sal Corporation v. Banco Mexicano, S.A. Francisco Suarez Davila Alonso Cuevas Del VillarCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Yei Sun v. Advanced China HealthcareCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.