Roland v. Branch Banking & Trust Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting the defendant’s obligation to “present facts that will defeat the plaintiff’s assertion of venue”
• noting the defendant’s obligation to “present facts that will defeat the plaintiff’s assertion of venue”
• denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss the pro se plaintiff’s complaint for improper service of process
• finding that, because the plaintiffs complaint “allege[d] that the [foreclosed] property [was] located in Maryland, and the foreclosure proceeding at issue took place in Maryland,” the plaintiff had not shown that a “substantial part” of his claims “occurred in the District of Columbia”
• finding the second basis for venue inapplicable for a similar action in D.C. where a complaint alleged that the relevant property was located in Maryland and the foreclosure proceeding at issue took place in Maryland
• first quoting Ananiev v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 968 F. Supp. 2d 123, 129 (D.D.C. 2013); then quoting McCain v. Bank of Am., 13 F. Supp. 3d 45, 51 (D.D.C. 2014)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).