Legal Opinion
Mazzella v. Stineman
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 22, 1979No. Civ. A. 79-465PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
LUONGO, District Judge.
Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this diversity action on February 6, 1979. They seek damages from three defendants — an individual and two corporations — for breach of contract and for certain tortious conduct. Defendants are Chris Stineman, Cambria Excess, Inc., and Amherst Insurance Company. Presently before me is Stineman’s motion to dismiss or transfer this action on the ground of improper venue. 1 For the reasons hereafter stated, I conclude that Stineman’s motion should be granted and that this action should be transferred to the Western District of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Strawbridge v. CurtissSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
- Herbert Milbert v. Bison Laboratories, Inc., and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1958
- Gulf Research & Development Co. v. LeahyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1951
- Wolgin v. Atlas United Financial CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
- De George v. Mandata Poultry CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1961
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gogolin & Stelter, Cross-Appellant v. Karn's Auto Imports, Inc., First City Bank, Bellaire, N.A., Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
- In Re Consolidated Parlodel LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1998
- Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1985
- Telectronics Proprietary, Ltd. v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1987
- ANDREW H. BY IRENE H. v. AmbachDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1984
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.