Bigham v. Envirocare of Utah

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

In Bigham v. Envirocare of Utah, Inc., 123 F.Supp.2d 1046, 1048 (S.D. Tex. 2000), a federal district court transferred venue at the request of defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged that the following events happened in Houston:

(1) the defendants sent several letters to people in Houston and
(2) defendants approached people in Houston and related incorrect information regarding Bigham.

Bigham, 123 F. Supp. 2d at 1048.

The court noted that, in general, letters mailed are considered a venue contact in the district the letter was drafted in, not the district the letter was mailed to. Id. at 1049 n.2. However the letters sent by the defendants were not sent to the plaintiffs, and no contracts were mailed from one venue, signed in another, and then returned to the original venue. Moreover, although the case was transferred for convenience, the court concluded that venue was proper in south Texas under the federal general venue statute despite the fact that the "overwhelming majority" of the allegedly wrongful actions occurred outside south Texas. Id. at 1049.

This decision was distinguished by Siemens Corp. v. Bartek, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 3533; 24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1080 (Ct. App., 3rd Dist., Apr. 28, 2006), which affirmed a denial of a motion to transfer venue.

Personal tools