Tomahawk Manufacturing, Inc., et al. v. Spherical Industries, Inc., et al.

Tomahawk Manufacturing · United States District Court for the District of Nevada · December 5, 2025 · No. 2:23-cv-01007-APG-NJK

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the District of Oregon under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court held that defendants failed to show the action could originally have been brought in Oregon because they had not established personal jurisdiction there when the lawsuit was initiated.

Holdings

  1. Because plaintiffs did not consent to transfer, the court could transfer the action only if it might originally have been brought in the District of Oregon.
  2. Defendants failed to show that the action might originally have been brought in the District of Oregon because they did not establish that the Oregon court had personal jurisdiction over them when the lawsuit was initiated.
  3. The defendants, as the parties seeking transfer, bore the burden of demonstrating that transfer was appropriate, and they did not meet that burden.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the action could be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the District of Oregon when plaintiffs did not consent and defendants failed to establish that the Oregon court had personal jurisdiction over them when the action was initiated.
  2. Whether defendants met their burden of showing that transfer was appropriate under § 1404(a).

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (4)

  • Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343-44 (1960)(followed)
  • Wash. Pub. Utils. Grp. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Wash., 843 F.2d 319, 328 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • In re Apple, Inc., 602 F.3d 909, 913 (8th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…