Shaw Group, Inc. v. Natkin & Co.
District Court, M.D. Louisiana
1Opinion of the Court
RULING ON THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER
POLOZOLA, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer. For the reasons given below, the defendant’s motion to transfer is granted.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
This suit arises out of a subcontract entered into between Natkin & Company (“Natkin”) and The Shaw Group, Inc. (“Shaw”), on November 16, 1993, in connection with a construction project at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (“TVA”) Cumberland Power Plant near Clarksville, Tennessee.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- In Re Ricoh CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Terra International, Inc. v. Mississippi Chemical Corp.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1996
- Cable-La, Inc. v. Williams Communications, Inc.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1999
- Micro-Assist, Inc. v. Cherry Communications, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 1997
- Commissioner of Insurance of Michigan v. DMD Kyoto Plaza Shopping Center, L.L.C.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1998
- 360 International Inc v. GoMex Energy Services LtdDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.