From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Static Ctrl. Components v. Intersolution Ventures LTD

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Jul 17, 2006
1:05CV00401 (Consolidated) (M.D.N.C. Jul. 17, 2006)

Opinion

1:05CV00401 (Consolidated).

July 17, 2006


ORDER


On May 24, 2006, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed and served on the parties in this action and a copy was given to the court.

Within the time limitation set forth in the statute, the parties objected to the Recommendation.

The court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objections were made and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge's report. The court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) [Docket Nos. 39, 47] be DENIED and that Defendants' alternate motions to transfer venue to the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [Docket Nos. 39, 47] be GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to effect the transfer forthwith.


Summaries of

Static Ctrl. Components v. Intersolution Ventures LTD

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina
Jul 17, 2006
1:05CV00401 (Consolidated) (M.D.N.C. Jul. 17, 2006)
Case details for

Static Ctrl. Components v. Intersolution Ventures LTD

Case Details

Full title:STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. INTERSOLUTION VENTURES…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Date published: Jul 17, 2006

Citations

1:05CV00401 (Consolidated) (M.D.N.C. Jul. 17, 2006)

Citing Cases

Selex ES Inc. v. NDI Techs.

When an objection to venue has been raised under Rule 12(b)(3), the burden lies with the plaintiff to…

Richardson v. Optum Servs.

When an objection to venue has been raised under Rule 12(b)(3), the burden lies with the plaintiff to…