The underlying dispute centers on Newsmax’s claim that Fox sustained an illegal monopoly over the pay-TV market for right-leaning news programming by using restrictive terms in distributor contracts to block or delay Newsmax’s entry into that market.
Newsmax filed the suit in the Western District of Wisconsin, but defendants moved to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, arguing the case belonged in Florida where Newsmax is based and where its original complaint was dismissed.
The court found venue proper in both districts under the Clayton Act’s broad venue provision, but determined that Wisconsin lacked any particular connection to the antitrust claims. Newsmax is a Florida company with its principal place of business in Boca Raton, while Fox News is based in New York.
Judge Conley noted that although Newsmax alleged broadcast content in Wisconsin, the same was true in Florida and every other state. The court also found that Newsmax merely recast its Florida state law claims under Wisconsin’s analogous statutes.
The transfer decision was heavily influenced by the procedural history of the case. Newsmax originally filed this antitrust action in the Southern District of Florida on September 3, 2025. The next day, that court dismissed the complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading under Eleventh Circuit precedent.
The Florida court gave Newsmax one week to amend its pleading, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal without further notice. On September 11, the day of the deadline, Newsmax voluntarily dismissed its Florida suit under Rule 41(a)(1) and refiled a nearly identical complaint in Wisconsin.
The new complaint differed only by amending the incorporation language, substituting Wisconsin state law antitrust claims for Florida ones, and adding allegations of unlawful block-booking. Newsmax offered no explanation for why it dismissed the Florida case or why it chose Wisconsin as its new venue.
Judge Conley rejected Newsmax’s argument that the short time the Florida case was pending insulated it from forum shopping allegations. The court found that a quick dismissal and refiling can be strong evidence of judge or forum shopping, particularly when the plaintiff fails to explain its choice of venue.
While acknowledging that Rule 41(a)(1) grants plaintiffs an unconditional right to dismiss a case, the court emphasized that this procedural right does not permit attorneys to abuse the judicial process or manipulate judge designation.
The court concluded that Newsmax’s failure to provide any reason for filing in Wisconsin, combined with its connection to Florida and the apparent forum shopping, tipped the scales in favor of transfer. The motion to dismiss Newsmax’s complaint was left for the transferee court to decide.