Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Garay v. BRK Electronics, 755 F.Supp. 1010 (M.D.Fla.1991). This question, in turn, depends on whether Dole is subject to jurisdiction in California, whether venue is appropriate in the Central District, and whether Dole is amenable to service of process in California. See Jewelmasters, Inc. v. May Dept. Stores Co., 840 F.Supp. 893, 894 (S.D.Fla.1993) (finding that action could have been brought in Central District of California where venue, process, and personal jurisdiction existed in that district). The United States Supreme Court has held that it is not enough to satisfy the “might have been brought requirement” that the defendant waives or consents to jurisdiction in the proposed transferee court. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 344, 80 S.Ct. 1084, 1090, 4 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1960) (<HOLDING>). Instead, the plaintiff must have had the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the customs court lacked jurisdiction when plaintiff failed to comply with all terms of consent by the united states mandated by 28 usc  1582 1976 the predecessor to 28 usc  1581a 2000 (B) holding district lacking personal jurisdiction over defendant not one in which suit might have been brought under section 1404a (C) holding that under 28 usc  1404a might have been brought requirement was not satisfied by defendants consent to jurisdiction (D) holding that where jurisdiction was based on 28 usc  2201 venue was determined as per 28 usc  1391 (E) holding that under the fsia personal jurisdiction   depends upon the district court finding subject matter jurisdiction under 28 usc  1330a and proper service under 28 usc  1608
Output (English): holding that the customs court lacked jurisdiction when plaintiff failed to comply with all terms of consent by the united states mandated by 28 usc  1582 1976 the predecessor to 28 usc  1581a 2000