Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Federal Judiciary

: Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Motions to Sever to Set Up Motions to Transfer Denied

By Michael C. Smith

ADVERTISEMENTS

Sipco, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al, No. 2:08cv00359) (June 3, 2009)
Judge: David Folsom
Holding: Motions to Sever DENIED
This is a patent infringement case brought against twelve defendants. At issue in this motion were two defendants' motions to have the plaintiff's claims against them severed so that they could file motions to be transferred to their home forums, unencumbered by the requirement that they show that the proposed transferee forums were "clearly more convenient" for all of the parties and witnesses. Judge Folsom denied the motions, writing that:

Recently, the Federal Circuit refused to order transfer of a case where transfer would have resulted in multiple lawsuits involving the same issues. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 2009 WL -2- 1425475, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2009). In so doing, the Federal Circuit stated that ?the existence of multiple suits involving the same issues is a paramount consideration when determining whether a transfer is in the interest of justice.? Id. (emphasis added). Moreover, ?a situation in which two cases involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously pending in different District Courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy, and money that § 1404(a) was designed to prevent.? Id.

In this case, the Court noted that defendants could not argue that transfer of this case is appropriate for all parties because both the Plaintiff and multiple Defendants have offices in the state of Texas. Instead, the moving defendants sought to "create simultaneous proceedings on the same patents and related products in three district courts." Judge Folsom concluded that doing so "would be unnecessarily wasteful of the court system?s time, energy, and money" and accordingly denied the motions.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on June 10, 2009 (boomark / email).