Murphy v. Fatzer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the first-to-file rule does not “negate[ ] § 1404(a)'s requirement that an action may be transferred only to a district where it ‘might have been brought’”
• holding the phrase “‘where it might have been brought’. . . cannot be expanded 14 by Defendants, even if they favor transfer to a district where the action could not have been 15 brought.”
• a district court relying solely on 21 first-to-file in transferring “could only transfer [the] action 22 to a district ‘where it might have been brought’”
• a district court relying solely on 21 first-to-file in transferring “could only transfer [the] action 22 to a district ‘where it might have been brought’”
• “Th[is] rule allows a court to transfer, stay, or dismiss a later-filed suit in deference to an earlier-filed suit” (citing Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991))
• first quoting Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. 14 Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94–95 (9th Cir. 1982); then quoting Kohn Law Grp., Inc. v. Auto 15 Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc., 787 F.3d 1237, 1239 (9th Cir. 2015)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).