Citigroup Inc. v. City Holding Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that generally “it is the court in which the first-filed action was brought that should decide whether 27 an exception to the first-filed rule applies.”
• finding that a website permitting New Yorkers to apply for loans and communicate with defendant’s employees was “unqualifiedly commercial in nature,” rising to the level of transacting business required by § 302(a)(1)
• finding that foreign defendant transacted business in New York when its website allowed New York customers to apply for loans on the Internet, electronically “chat” with an online representative, and e-mail questions to the defendant and receive a rapid response
• defining an improper anticipatory filing as “one made under the apparent threat of a presumed adversary filing the mirror image of that suit”
• defining an improper anticipatory filing as “one made under the apparent threat of a presumed adversary filing the mirror image of that suit”
• finding personal jurisdiction where the defendant operated a website that allowed New York customers to apply for loans online and chat online with a representative

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).