Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue but granted their motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court held that venue was proper in Oklahoma because the leases were negotiated and executed there, but transferred the case to the Southern District of Texas because the alleged royalty underpayments, key witnesses, relevant evidence, and likely governing law were centered in Texas.
Holdings
- Venue was proper in the Eastern District of Oklahoma because the negotiation and execution of the leases occurred there and constituted a substantial event giving rise to the claims; dismissal for improper venue was therefore unwarranted.
- Transfer was warranted because the Southern District of Texas was a proper transferee forum and was more convenient and consistent with fairness and the interests of justice.
Questions Presented
- Whether venue was improper in the Eastern District of Oklahoma under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
- Whether the action should be transferred to the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for convenience and in the interest of justice.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (8)
- Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1166 (10th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Gulf Insurance Co. v. Glasbrenner, 417 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515-16 (10th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)(followed)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)(followed)
- Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 31 (1960)(followed)
- Cook v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 816 F. Supp. 667, 669 (D. Kan. 1993)(followed)
- Kunneman Properties, LLC v. Marathon Oil Co., 2018 WL 337752, at *3 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 9, 2018)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…