U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co., Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court findings were subject to clear error review where parties did not seek evidentiary hearing and “filed multiple briefs and extensive evidence with the court over a two-year period”
• holding that district court findings were subject to clear error review where parties did not seek evidentiary hearing and ʺfiled multiple briefs and extensive evidence with the court over a two‐year periodʺ
• concluding corporation 9 purposely availed itself of the U.S. forum by “negotiating and forming a contract” with U.S.- 10 based corporation
• affirming a ruling out of the Southern District of New York ordering parties to proceed to arbitration in London
• finding venue proper in New York where the defendant “directed communications to New York”
• considering a substantially identical venue statute and reasoning that contract negotiations involving the forum state and the defendant’s communications “directed” to the forum state rendered venue in the forum state proper

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).