In re: YAHOO HOLDINGS INC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 2017 did not consti- tute an…

18-103Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit1 de dez. de 2017

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: YAHOO HOLDINGS INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2018-103
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
in No. 1:16-cv-01557-ILG-SMG, Judge I. Leo Glasser.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before P ROST , Chief Judge, MOORE and O’MALLEY , Circuit
Judges.
O’MALLEY , Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Yahoo Holdings, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus
directing the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York to dismiss this case for improper
venue. Specifically, Yahoo argues that the district court
clearly abused its discretion in determining that Yahoo’s
venue defense had been waived and that the Supreme
Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods
Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) did not consti-
tute an intervening change in law. Respondents Al-
Case: 18-103 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 11/22/2017

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE: YAHOO HOLDINGS INC . 2
mondNet, Inc., Datonics, LLC, and Intent IQ, LLC op-
pose.
We recently held that the Supreme Court’s decision in
TC Heartland effected a relevant change in the law and,
more particularly, that failure to present the venue objec-
tion earlier did not come within the waiver rule of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) and (h)(1). In re Micron
Tech., Inc., No. 17-138 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017). In light
of that decision, we deem it the proper course here for
Yahoo to first move the district court for reconsideration
of its order denying the motion to dismiss. We therefore
deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. Any new
petition for mandamus from the district court’s ruling on
reconsideration will be considered on its own merits.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s31
Case: 18-103 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 11/22/2017

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.