From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

TATE LYLE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED v. AIDP, INC.

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division
Aug 28, 2007
Case No. 07-2050 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2007)

Opinion

Case No. 07-2050.

August 28, 2007


ORDER


A Report and Recommendation (#56) was filed by the Magistrate Judge in the above cause on July 19, 2007. More than ten (10) days have elapsed since the filing of the Recommendation and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is, therefore, accepted by the court. See Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) Defendant AIDP's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (#41) is GRANTED.

(2) Defendant AIDP is terminated as a party to this litigation based upon lack of personal jurisdiction.

(3) This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.


Summaries of

TATE LYLE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED v. AIDP, INC.

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division
Aug 28, 2007
Case No. 07-2050 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2007)
Case details for

TATE LYLE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED v. AIDP, INC.

Case Details

Full title:TATE LYLE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED and TATE LYLE SUCRALOSE, INC., Plaintiffs, v…

Court:United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division

Date published: Aug 28, 2007

Citations

Case No. 07-2050 (C.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2007)

Citing Cases

Schlumberger Technology Corp. v. Greenwich Metals Inc.

Greenwich argues that Xstrata created minimum contacts with Kansas by sending a lead sample directly to the…