Peter Paul Mitrano v. Christopher J. Hawes, D/B/A Cjh Color and Design Group

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the act “allegedly creat[ing]” a party’s “entitlement” to the payment they sought was “substantial” for purposes of § 1391(b)(2) (emphasis added)
• holding that plaintiff’s work under contract at issue constituted a substantial part of events giving rise to claim
• concluding that the act “allegedly creat[ing]” a party’s “entitlement” to the payment they sought was “substantial” for purposes of § 1391(b)(2) (emphasis added)
• noting that the principal’s “knowing continuation of” his agent’s forum activity “demonstrates that his availment of Virginia’s legal protections was purposeful”
• noting that “it is possible for venue to be proper in more than one judicial district”
• “depending on the amount of work that [plaintiff] completed in the Eastern District, that work alone may be sufficient to justify venue there.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).