McIntire v. James

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[t]he Third Circuit gives great weight to a plaintiff’s choice of forum” unless “the central facts of a lawsuit occur outside of the chosen forum” (citation omitted)
• finding close relation based on foreseeability because the defendant was aware of the non-competition agreement while recruiting the employee
• finding defendant aimed tortious interference with remote employees’ contracts at plaintiff’s home state where, among other things, defendant knew the details of the employees’ contracts and competed with plaintiff in that state
• burden is on movant to “‘show the proposed forum is not only adequate, but also more convenient than the present forum’” (citation omitted)
• “Critically, [the defendant] used the Employee Defendants in an effort to increase its sales in [the forum state], allegedly utilizing [Plaintiff’s] confidential information in the process.”
• “Specific jurisdiction requires that the defendant ‘purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.’” (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).