Legal Opinion
Bao v. Gruntal & Co., Inc.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided October 2, 1996No. Civil Action 96-2045(MLP)PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PARELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on (1) application of plaintiff Edward E. Bao (“Bao”) for a preliminary injunction; and (2) motion of defendant Gruntal & Co., Inc. (“Gruntal”) to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. For the following reasons, defendant’s motion to transfer is granted and plaintiffs application for a preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to renew said application in the transferee district.
BACKGROUND
Pl…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Painewebber Incorporated v. Michael J. Bybyk and Joyce O. BybykCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- PAINEWEBBER INCORPORATED v. Willard S. HARTMANN, Leona R. Hartmann, AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. And Patrick Palella v. Peter H. Lauer and Therese A. LauerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- National Indemnity Co. v. Transatlantic Reinsurance Co.District Court, D. Nebraska · 2014
- M.C. Construction Corp. v. Gray Co.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1998
- Optopics Laboratories Corp. v. NicholasDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1996
- UAL Corp. v. Mesa Airlines, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2000
- Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. DruzCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.