Moving or Keeping a Case in Your Chosen Forum: A Practical Guide

Summary. How to pick a forum you can keep, and how to move one you cannot.

Before you file

The forum decision is made once and lived with for years. Spend an hour on it.

Step 1 — Build a forum comparison

For each candidate district, record:

Then ask the question that decides it: if we file here, will it survive a § 1404(a) motion? A district with no connection to the facts, no party presence, and no witnesses is an invitation to spend six figures defending the choice and lose anyway.

Step 2 — Confirm venue is proper

• Does a special venue statute apply? Patent under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b); copyright under § 1400(a); securities, antitrust, ERISA, and others have their own. Check before applying the general statute.
• Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391: does a defendant reside here, or did a substantial part of the events occur here?
• For patent cases: is the defendant incorporated here, or does it have a regular and established physical place of business here that is the defendant's, not an employee's home office? TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017).
• Is there a forum selection clause in any governing agreement? Read its scope carefully — "arising out of" versus "arising out of or relating to."
• Is personal jurisdiction available over each defendant?

Step 3 — Do not hand the other side a declaratory action

A demand letter that threatens litigation with specificity may create a controversy sufficient to support a declaratory judgment action under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and the standard of MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) — in the recipient's chosen forum.

Options, in order of protection:

1. File first, then write. Sue, then send the complaint with a settlement proposal. Certain and expensive.
2. Obtain a standstill agreement. A mutual commitment not to file for a defined period while negotiating. This is the cleanest solution and recipients frequently accept it because they also prefer not to spend money.
3. Write a letter that does not create a controversy. Describe the intellectual property or the contract issue, invite discussion, and avoid asserting infringement or threatening suit. This reduces the risk; the MedImmune standard is forgiving enough that it does not eliminate it.
4. Accept the risk where the recipient's likely forum is tolerable.

The failure pattern: a specific demand with a fourteen-day deadline, followed by a declaratory action in the recipient's home district on day three, followed by six figures in transfer motions to reach the forum the contract already specified.

PART ONE: MOVING A CASE

Step 4 — Choose the mechanism

Note: transfer moves a case; forum non conveniens dismisses it, usually on conditions.

Step 5 — Build the § 1404(a) record

This is where transfer motions are won and lost, and the difference is specificity.

Name the witnesses. For each:

• Name, employer, and location
• Expected testimony, described substantively
• Whether the witness is within the subpoena power of the current district under Rule 45 — 100 miles, or within the state for a party or officer
• Whether the witness is a party employee (compellable) or a non-party (frequently not)
• Any stated unwillingness to travel

A motion identifying four non-party witnesses beyond the subpoena reach, with their expected testimony, succeeds far more often than one describing general inconvenience.

Locate the evidence. Physical evidence, systems, and facilities that must be inspected.

Address the plaintiff's choice. Deference is reduced where the plaintiff sued outside its home district, where the operative facts occurred elsewhere, or where the connection is attenuated. Say which applies and why.

Use the public factors. Comparative median time to trial is objective, published, and persuasive. Local interest in a controversy centered elsewhere is a real argument. Familiarity with governing law matters where a state's law will control.

Move early. Delay suggests the inconvenience is tolerable.

Step 6 — Enforce a forum selection clause

After Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013), the motion is much simpler and the opposition much harder.

Your brief needs three things:

1. The clause is valid. Presumption of enforceability under The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972); no fraud or overreaching in obtaining it; no deprivation of a meaningful day in court; no contravention of strong public policy.
2. The clause covers this dispute. Quote the scope language and match it to the claims. This is the element most often contested, and the breadth of "arising out of or relating to" is usually decisive.
3. The clause is mandatory, not permissive. "Shall be brought exclusively in" versus "consent to the jurisdiction of."

Then recite the three modifications: the plaintiff's choice merits no weight; private interest factors are not considered; and the transferor's choice-of-law rules do not travel.

The opponent's only realistic arguments are validity and scope, because private convenience is off the table and public factors rarely suffice.

Step 7 — Forum non conveniens

Required elements:

• An adequate alternative forum. The defendant must be amenable to process there, and the remedy must not be so clearly inadequate as to be no remedy at all. An unfavorable change in law is not enough — Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981).
• The Gulf Oil factors favor the alternative forum, per Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947).
• Deference to the plaintiff's choice, reduced where the plaintiff is foreign.

Offer the conditions. Standard practice, and it substantially improves the motion:

Defendant consents to jurisdiction in [forum]; waives any limitations defense that arose after the filing of this action; agrees to make documents and witnesses available; and agrees to satisfy any judgment.

Note that under Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007), the court may dismiss without first resolving difficult jurisdictional questions.

PART TWO: PARALLEL CASES

Step 8 — First-filed briefing

For the first filer: establish that the actions involve substantially the same parties and issues, that yours was first by docket timestamp, and that comity favors proceeding here.

For the second filer: invoke the exceptions.

• Anticipatory filing. Was the first suit a declaratory action filed in response to a specific and concrete threat, to secure a forum? Attach the demand letter. The more specific the threat, the stronger the exception.
• Forum shopping. Does the first forum have any connection to the dispute?
• Convenience. Run the § 1404(a) factors.
• Comprehensiveness. Is the second action broader in parties or claims?
• Bad faith. Did the first filer induce delay through settlement discussions while preparing to file?

Step 9 — Parallel state proceedings

Abstention under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) is exceptional. Federal courts have a "virtually unflagging obligation" to exercise jurisdiction. Weigh: assumption of jurisdiction over a res; inconvenience of the federal forum; avoidance of piecemeal litigation; order and progress of the cases; whether federal or state law governs; and adequacy of the state proceeding.

The presence of federal claims counts heavily against abstention.

For declaratory relief specifically, Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995) gives district courts substantially broader discretion to stay or dismiss pending parallel state litigation.

Enjoining a state proceeding runs into the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283: permitted only where expressly authorized by Congress, necessary in aid of jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate a judgment.

Step 10 — Foreign parallel proceedings

An anti-suit injunction operates on the party, not the foreign court.

Threshold requirements everywhere: same parties, same issues, and resolution of the domestic action would be dispositive.

Then the circuits diverge. The conservative approach requires a threat to the enjoining court's jurisdiction or to an important public policy. The liberal approach weighs vexatiousness, duplication, inconvenience, and inconsistency more readily. Know your circuit's standard before drafting.

Alternatives: a stay pending the foreign proceeding; seeking discovery in aid of it under 28 U.S.C. § 1782; or negotiating a coordination agreement, which is often more productive than an injunction that will strain relations with the foreign court.

Step 11 — Removal and multidistrict litigation

Removal. Notice within thirty days under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, consent of served defendants, and filing in the district embracing the state court. Check the forum-defendant rule, and note that 28 U.S.C. § 1453 relaxes several constraints for class actions.

Before removing, run the standing analysis. If the plaintiff lacks Article III standing, the remedy is remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447, not dismissal, and remand orders are generally unreviewable.

Multidistrict tag-alongs. A case sharing common factual questions with an existing multidistrict proceeding may be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Notify the Panel of a potential tag-along; oppose transfer by showing the factual questions are not common. Remember that transfer is for pretrial only — under Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998), unresolved cases must be remanded for trial.

A worked transfer motion

Ambrose Reinsurance sues Halvard Manufacturing in the District of New Jersey for breach of a reinsurance treaty and for fraudulent inducement. Ambrose is a New Jersey corporation. Halvard is a Wisconsin corporation headquartered in Milwaukee, with no offices, employees, or property in New Jersey. The treaty was negotiated in Milwaukee and Chicago, performed in Wisconsin, and contains no forum selection clause.

Halvard's counsel, Josefina Okwuosa-Braithwaite, moves to transfer to the Eastern District of Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

What she does before drafting

She confirms the threshold. Could the action have been brought in the Eastern District of Wisconsin? Halvard resides there; a substantial part of the events occurred there. Yes.

She builds the witness list — the part that decides the motion. Not "several witnesses are in Wisconsin," but a table:

Three non-party witnesses, all beyond the 100-mile reach of Rule 45, all with testimony central to the fraud claim. This is the motion.

She obtains a declaration from Halvard's general counsel — not from herself — stating each witness's location, role, expected testimony, and, for the two she contacted, their unwillingness to travel to New Jersey voluntarily.

She pulls the statistics. Median time from filing to trial: District of New Jersey, 44 months; Eastern District of Wisconsin, 29 months. Published, objective, and persuasive.

She checks the choice-of-law consequence before promising anything to the client. Under Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964), the transferee court applies New Jersey's choice-of-law rules. Wisconsin's more favorable limitations rule will not apply. She tells Halvard this in writing before filing, because the client's first question after the motion is granted will be whether the law changed.

The motion

Twenty-two pages, structured around the declaration:

• Threshold: the action could have been brought in Wisconsin.
• Private factors: the three non-party witnesses and their unavailability; the location of the negotiation and performance; documents and personnel in Milwaukee.
• Plaintiff's choice: entitled to deference, but Ambrose's connection is its own residence rather than the operative facts, all of which occurred in Wisconsin and Illinois.
• Public factors: the fifteen-month difference in time to trial; Wisconsin's local interest in a dispute centered on a Wisconsin company's conduct; New Jersey has no particular interest beyond the plaintiff's residence.
• Choice of law: New Jersey's rules will follow, so transfer does not disadvantage Ambrose substantively.

That last point is worth including. It removes the opponent's most sympathetic argument and demonstrates candor.

Ambrose's opposition

Ambrose emphasizes deference to its choice, argues the witnesses could testify by videoconference, and notes that Halvard sells into New Jersey.

Josefina's reply addresses each:

• Videoconference is available for convenience but does not answer compulsion — a non-party who will not appear cannot be made to.
• Selling into a district establishes jurisdiction, not convenience.
• The deference argument is weakened where none of the operative facts occurred in the chosen forum.

Transfer granted, four months after filing.

What made it work

Three named non-party witnesses beyond the subpoena power. Everything else was supporting argument.

A declaration from a client witness, not from counsel.

Moving early. Filed with the answer, before substantial proceedings.

Candor about the choice-of-law consequence, which both strengthened the motion and prevented an unpleasant conversation with the client afterward.

Resisting a transfer motion

The mirror discipline, and the arguments that actually work.

Connect the forum to the facts. Deference to the plaintiff's choice is strongest where something happened here. Identify it specifically: a contract executed here, a payment received here, a decision made here, an injury suffered here.

Attack the witness showing element by element.

• Are the named witnesses necessary, or merely relevant? A motion listing eleven witnesses whose testimony overlaps is weaker than one listing three.
• Are they party employees? Those can be compelled, and the inconvenience is the movant's own.
• Has the movant contacted them? An assertion that a witness "would be inconvenienced," without any statement from the witness, is thin.
• Would videoconference suffice for peripheral testimony?

Show the movant's own connections to the chosen forum: offices, sales, contracts, registered agents, prior litigation filed here.

Compare congestion honestly. If the transferee district is slower, say so with the published figures.

Raise the timing. A motion filed after substantial proceedings invites the observation that transfer would waste the court's work.

Where a forum selection clause is asserted, understand that after Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013) your only realistic arguments are validity and scope. Do not spend pages on convenience; the court will not consider it. Spend them on whether the clause covers this claim.

Consider conceding. Where transfer is likely, opposing it costs money and credibility. A client told early that the forum is indefensible makes a better decision than one told after an unsuccessful opposition.

Working the choice-of-law consequence

This is the sleeper issue in transfer practice. A defendant seeking transfer to escape unfavorable state law will not escape it under § 1404(a), and should say so to the client before spending money on the motion.

Sequencing multiple motions

A defendant frequently has several forum-related motions available, and the order matters.

The general principle: jurisdictional and venue questions come before merits questions, and a court that can dispose of a case on the easier ground usually will.

A workable sequence:

1. Remove, if federal jurisdiction exists and you want a federal forum. This must happen within thirty days under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 and cannot wait for anything else.
2. Personal jurisdiction, if genuinely absent. Winning here ends the case as to that defendant, which is better than moving it.
3. Venue or transfer. Improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406; inconvenient venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); or a forum selection clause.
4. Forum non conveniens, where the alternative is a foreign or state forum. Note that Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) permits this before resolving difficult jurisdictional questions.
5. Merits motions — in the transferee court, generally, since transfer moots the effort otherwise.

Preservation traps:

• Personal jurisdiction and venue defenses are waived if not raised in the first responsive motion or pleading under Rule 12. Consolidate them.
• Subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised at any time.
• Forum non conveniens is not subject to the Rule 12 consolidation requirement in the same way, but delay undermines it.
• Removal has a hard thirty-day clock; missing it forfeits the federal forum permanently.

Filing everything at once versus sequentially. Rule 12 requires consolidation of the enumerated defenses, so they go together. But a defendant may reasonably file the transfer motion first and reserve merits motions for the transferee court — many courts prefer that, and it avoids briefing dispositive issues before a judge who may not decide them.

A note on discovery during the motion. Courts vary on whether to stay discovery pending a transfer motion. Ask. A defendant that litigates the case fully while its transfer motion is pending has undercut its own inconvenience argument.

Managing a case in two forums at once

Sometimes both cases survive, and the client is litigating the same dispute twice. This is expensive and manageable.

Move to consolidate or stay, early. A stay of the second action pending the first is the ordinary and cheapest resolution, and courts grant it where the issues genuinely overlap. Frame it as efficiency rather than as a forum argument, which is what a court that has already declined to transfer wants to hear.

Coordinate discovery. A single set of document productions, cross-noticed depositions, and a joint protective order avoid doing everything twice. Opposing counsel usually agrees, because the duplication costs them equally.

Watch for inconsistent positions. The most dangerous consequence of parallel litigation is that the client's position in one case becomes an admission in the other. Assign one person to review every substantive filing in both.

Preclusion is coming. Whichever case reaches judgment first may preclude issues or claims in the other. Understand which rulings would be preclusive and factor that into which case to advance and which to slow.

Watch the schedules. A summary judgment ruling in one forum lands in the other's briefing. Sequence deliberately rather than letting the calendars collide.

Where one case is foreign, consider whether discovery in aid of it is available under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, and whether an anti-suit injunction is realistic under your circuit's standard — recognizing that seeking one strains relations with the foreign court and is frequently more provocative than productive.

Settlement covers both. Any resolution must release both proceedings and provide for dismissal of each, with the mechanics specified. A settlement that ends one case and leaves the other pending is a common and avoidable failure.

Mistakes that recur

Filing in a forum you cannot keep. Six figures defending a choice that fails anyway.

A demand letter that invites a declaratory action. The most common unforced error in forum practice.

A transfer motion describing general inconvenience. Name the witnesses, state their testimony, establish they are outside the subpoena power.

Missing a special venue statute. Patent venue is the frequent one.

Removing a case whose plaintiff lacks standing. The remedy is remand.

Expecting transfer to change the governing law. Under § 1404(a) it does not.

Drafting a permissive clause when you wanted an exclusive one.

A clause limited to disputes "arising out of" the agreement, leaving related tort claims outside it.

Moving to transfer late. Delay undercuts the inconvenience argument.

Seeking an anti-suit injunction without checking the circuit's standard.

Forum considerations by case type

The general framework applies everywhere; the practical questions differ.

Patent. Venue is the threshold question and it is restrictive: 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) after TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017) permits suit only where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established physical place of business. Expect a venue motion in every case where the connection is thin, expect mandamus practice, and remember that appeals go to the Federal Circuit regardless of the district — so circuit shopping is unavailable and district selection is about pace, local rules, and jury pool.

Trade secret. Frequently accompanied by a request for immediate relief, which favors a forum that can hear an emergency application quickly. Consider where the former employee is, where the misappropriation occurred, and whether a state court can move faster.

Contract. Usually governed by the clause. Where none exists, the negotiation and performance locations dominate the § 1404(a) analysis.

Consumer class actions. Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1453 is the first decision, and it must account for Article III standing — a plaintiff who cannot satisfy it produces remand, not dismissal. Consider whether the state forum's class practice is better or worse.

Securities. Specialized venue and nationwide service provisions permit suit in many districts. Related actions are frequently consolidated, and the lead plaintiff process shapes the forum more than a transfer motion will.

Mass torts. Multidistrict transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is likely. The meaningful decisions are which district to support before the Panel and whether to oppose transfer at all — and remembering under Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998) that transfer is pretrial only.

International disputes. Forum non conveniens, anti-suit injunctions, and enforcement of any resulting judgment abroad. Frequently the right answer at the drafting stage was arbitration, because arbitral awards travel across borders far better than court judgments.

Employment. Arbitration clauses displace the forum question entirely in a large share of cases. Where they do not, the employee's residence and workplace dominate.

Bankruptcy-adjacent. Whether a dispute belongs in the bankruptcy court, the district court, or elsewhere is its own analysis, and the ability to withdraw the reference or to seek abstention is a recurring strategic question.

Frequently asked questions

Should I raise venue and personal jurisdiction together? Yes — Rule 12 requires consolidation of these defenses, and raising one without the other waives the omitted one. Assess both before the first responsive filing.

What is the success rate on transfer motions? Highly variable, and the variable is the record. Motions supported by named non-party witnesses beyond the subpoena power succeed at a much higher rate than motions describing general inconvenience. Tell the client the odds honestly based on the record you actually have.

Can I get discovery to support a transfer motion? Usually limited. Courts permit targeted venue discovery where the facts are genuinely disputed — whether the defendant has a place of business in the district, for instance — and decline broad discovery framed as venue-related.

What happens to pending motions when a case transfers? They travel with the case. The transferee court may decide them, may require rebriefing under its local rules, or may deny them without prejudice to refiling. Ask early rather than assuming.

Does the transferee judge have to follow the transferor's rulings? Rulings already made are generally law of the case, and the transferee court has discretion to revisit them but typically does not without good reason. On questions of circuit law, however, the transferee court applies its own circuit's law, which can produce a different answer to the same question.

How long should a transfer motion be? Fifteen to twenty-five pages, with declarations attached. The declarations are the motion; the brief explains them.

Who should sign the witness declaration? Someone with personal knowledge of the witnesses' locations and expected testimony — usually a party representative, not counsel.

Can I move to transfer and to dismiss at the same time? Yes, and it is common. Courts frequently address transfer first, since the transferee court can decide the merits motion.

Is a transfer order appealable? Not directly. Mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 is available for clear abuse of discretion, and the Federal Circuit grants it with some regularity in patent venue disputes.

What if my forum selection clause names a state court? It is enforced through forum non conveniens rather than § 1404(a), and the remedy is dismissal rather than transfer.

Should I oppose a multidistrict transfer? Assess honestly whether common factual questions exist. Opposition succeeds where the case is genuinely distinct; it fails and costs credibility where the case is one of hundreds.

Can the parties agree on a forum after the dispute arises? Yes. Section 1404(a) permits transfer to any district to which all parties consent, without regard to where the action could originally have been brought.

Explaining forum decisions to a client

Clients experience forum motions as expensive procedural fighting that produces no ruling on anything they care about. The conversation goes better with structure.

Explain what actually differs. Not "the Eastern District is better for us" but: fifteen months faster to trial; the governing circuit has held X on the issue that will decide this case; the jury pool differs in these ways; and our three most important witnesses cannot be compelled to appear in the current district.

Quantify the cost of the fight. A transfer motion, opposition, and reply runs $60,000 to $150,000 depending on the record. Say so before filing.

Quantify the cost of not fighting. Litigating four states away for three years costs travel, local counsel, and the inability to compel witnesses. Put a number on it.

Be honest about the odds. Transfer motions succeed at a moderate rate, and the rate is much higher with named non-party witnesses outside the subpoena power and much lower without. If the record is thin, say the motion is unlikely and let the client decide whether to spend the money anyway.

Explain the choice-of-law consequence before filing, not after. A client who learns after a granted transfer that the unfavorable limitations rule followed the case will not remember being told it was a possibility; they will remember not being told.

For forum selection clauses, explain that the fight is nearly over before it starts. After Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 571 U.S. 49 (2013), a valid clause covering the dispute controls in all but exceptional cases. A client resisting one should understand it is spending money on a low-probability argument about validity or scope.

Connect it to the contract. The most useful thing a litigator can do for a client's next dispute is to explain, at the end of this one, what the forum clause should have said. Clients remember that conversation and act on it.

The standstill agreement

The most underused instrument in forum practice. It costs a page and it prevents the declaratory-action race that generates most avoidable forum litigation.

STANDSTILL AGREEMENT

1. Purpose. The parties wish to discuss resolution of the matters described in [the letter dated ___ / the disputes concerning ___] without either party commencing litigation.

2. Standstill. Neither party will commence any action, arbitration, or administrative proceeding against the other concerning the Disputes until the earlier of (a) [60] days from the date of this Agreement, or (b) [10] business days after either party gives written notice terminating this Agreement.

3. Tolling. All statutes of limitation, repose, laches, and any other time-based defenses applicable to the Disputes are tolled from the date of this Agreement until [10] business days after termination. Neither party will assert that the passage of time during this period bars any claim or defense.

4. No prejudice. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes an admission, and neither party waives any claim, defense, or position, including as to forum, jurisdiction, or venue.

5. Confidentiality. Communications during the standstill are settlement communications, inadmissible to prove liability.

6. Notice. Written notice under Section 2 must be given to [named individuals] at [addresses] and is effective on receipt.

7. No first-filing advantage. Neither party will contend that the timing of any action commenced after termination of this Agreement establishes priority under any first-filed or similar doctrine by reason of this Agreement.

Why each provision matters.

Section 2's notice period is the point. Without it, a party can terminate and file the same minute, which reintroduces the race. Ten business days gives the other side time to file too, which means neither gains by racing.

Section 3's tolling removes the argument that a party had to file to preserve its claims.

Section 7 prevents a party from arguing that the standstill somehow reset the first-filed analysis.

When to propose it. Immediately upon receiving a demand letter, or immediately before sending one. Recipients accept these routinely, because litigation is expensive for everyone and neither side actually wants to spend six figures on venue.

When not to. Where immediate injunctive relief is genuinely needed, or where the other party is dissipating assets or destroying evidence. In those cases file, and file first.

Where to get help

Federal Judicial Center statistics. Published caseload and time-to-disposition data by district, updated regularly. This is the objective evidence for the public-interest factors, and it is free.

Local rules and standing orders. Every district publishes them, and individual judges publish their own procedures. Read the assigned judge's standing order before filing anything; it frequently governs page limits, conference requirements, and whether a pre-motion letter is required.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Publishes its rules, pending motions, and the docket of existing multidistrict proceedings. Check before filing a case that may be a tag-along.

Circuit law on the dispositive issues. For a case likely to be appealed, the governing circuit matters more than the district. Research it before choosing a forum, not after an adverse ruling.

Local counsel. In an unfamiliar district, local counsel who knows the judge's practices is worth more than the admission requirement makes them cost. Ask specifically about the judge's approach to transfer motions, discovery disputes, and scheduling.

Prior venue rulings by the assigned judge. A judge who has denied six transfer motions in two years is a different audience than one who has granted them. This research takes twenty minutes and informs whether to file.

Contract counsel, at the end. The most valuable output of a forum fight is a better clause in the next agreement. Bring the litigation experience to whoever drafts the contracts.

Related documents

• Forum Selection, Transfer, and Parallel Proceedings: Choosing and Keeping the Court You Want
• Venue and Transfer Checklist: A Practical Checklist
• Forum Strategy Toolkit: Clauses, Transfer Motions, and First-Filed Briefing
• Filing or Defending a Declaratory Judgment Action: A Practical Guide
• Removal and Remand: Getting a Case to Federal Court and Keeping It There
• Multidistrict Litigation and Mass Torts: How Thousands of Cases Become One Proceeding
• Serving a Foreign Defendant Under the Hague Convention: A Practical Checklist
• Motion Practice Toolkit: Dispositive, Discovery, and In Limine Motions