Sunshine Cellular v. Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• denying motion to dismiss based on plaintiffs definition of relevant product market as cellular services available to users of Vanguard cellular phones
• plaintiffs choice of forum entitled to significant weight even where plaintiff not a resident of forum
• “If there is any doubt whether the challenged matter may raise an issue of fact or law, the motion to strike should be denied”
• “Since Vanguard does business in this district, it cannot contend that it would be substantially inconvenienced by litigating here”
• “Since Vanguard does business in this district, it cannot contend that it would be substantially inconvenienced by litigating here”
• “If there is any doubt whether the challenged matter may raise an issue of fact or law, the motion to strike should be denied, and the sufficiency of the allegations left for the adjudication on the merits.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).