Samuel Myers v. The Bennett Law Offices, and Doug McCallon Timothy Myers v. The Bennett Law Offices

How courts have described this case

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

• holding \substantial part\ of 22 23 3 In the alternative, Paxton argues venue is inconvenient in this district, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a
• holding “substantial part” of 17 events giving rise to tort claim occurs in district where plaintiff alleges “harms” were “felt”
• noting that the locus of injury is a relevant factor for venue purposes and concluding venue was proper where plaintiffs felt the harms they suffered
• finding that alleged FCRA violation, which is akin to an invasion of privacy tort, that occurred outside Nevada injured plaintiffs at their Nevada home because such privacy invasions result in mental distress experienced where the plaintiff lives
• finding venue proper where plaintiff resides and experienced tort-like harm of Fair Credit Reporting Act violation
• exercising personal jurisdiction in Nevada over a Utah 10 corporation with is principal place of business in Utah after an employee of the corporation 11 improperly ordered a credit report, using the corporation’s order forms, about Nevada 12 residents

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).