Williams v. GEICO CORP.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that venue was improper because the plaintiff did not refute a declaration accompanying a motion to dismiss
• explaining that venue in an ADA action is proper, among other places, where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred
• “Delivering a summons and complaint to a corporate representative who is not an officer, a managing or general agent, or an agent authorized to accept service fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(h)[(1)].”
• “Delivering a summons and complaint to a corporate representative who is not an officer, a managing or general agent, or an agent authorized to accept service fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(h)[ (1) ].”
• “[W]hen [an] objection has been raised, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the district he chose is a proper venue.”
• “Deference to plaintiffs pro se status ... cannot justify the exercise of jurisdiction over defendants who have not been served properly.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).