Legal Opinion
Veney v. Starbucks Corp.
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided June 19, 2008No. Civil Action 07-0875 (RMU)PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Granting the Defendant’s Motion to Transfer the Case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
RICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff, Gail Veney, brings suit against Starbucks Corporation, alleging acts of negligence in violation of Virginia common law related to her drinking tainted coffee at a Starbucks location in Alexandria, Virginia. The defendant moves to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (“the Eastern District of Virginia” or “the transferee district”). The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Van Dusen v. BarrackSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- George Jumara and Evangelina Jumara, H/w v. State Farm Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Trout Unlimited v. United States Department of AgricultureDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1996
- Heller Financial, Inc. v. Riverdale Auto Parts, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1989
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Sheffer v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Pueblo v. National Indian Gaming CommissionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2010
- Mazzarino v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
- United States Ex Rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Greene v. NATIONAL HEAD START ASS'N, INC.District Court, District of Columbia · 2009
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.