Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 15, 28 U.S.C.A.(a). Hal Neier, Hallie B. Levin, Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, New York, New York, for Plaintiff.

Prediscovery assertion that defendant’s principal place of business was in New York was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under rule allow- ing court to provisionally accept disputed factual allegations as true, warranting denial of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, with leave to renew after parties completed discovery. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. MEMORANDUM & ORDER CASEY, J. “1 Plaintiff digiGAN, Inc. (“Plaintiff ’) brought &IS action against ivalidate, Inc. (“iValidate”), MDM Group, Inc. (“MDM’), and TIE Technologies, Inc. (“TIE”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) for a declaratory judgment that Plaintiff is the own- er of certain property, including a number of pat- ents, and for damages based on violations of federal patent law and state unfair competition law. The three Defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the action.

CONCLUSION Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act and other applicable law, the Guard respectfully submits that it is entitled to: (1) Dismissal of all COL Bryant's claims against it with prejudice; (2) A joint and several award, against COL Bryant and COL Bryant's counsel, of all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses the Guard has and will incur in this Action to its final conclusion, including any appeals; Case 3:05-cv-00179-TSL-FKB Document 20 Filed 05/05/05 Page 9 of 12 6 (3) A joint and several award, against COL Bryant and COL Bryant's counsel, of such punitive monetary sanctions as are appropriate to discourage the filing of such meritless litigation in the future; and (4) Such further, alternative, supplemental or additional relief as may be appropriate in the premises.

08 Civ. 04213 (WHP) (THK), 2009 WL 1447504, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2009) (noting that the procedures of the Hague Convention or other applicable treaty must be utilized to compel the deposition of a non-party witness located overseas). Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(2) provides, in relevant part, that a Letter of Request “shall be issued on appropriate terms after an application and notice of it” and “without a showing that taking the deposition in another manner is impracticable or inconvenient.” A party opposing an application for a Letter of Request bears the burden of showing “good reason” why the request for issuance of letters should be denied.

Letters of request can be issued “after an application and notice of it.” FED R. CIV. P. 28(b)(2)(A)-(B). If the above-named witnesses were within the subpoena power of the Southern District of New York, testimony and documents for trial from the above-named deponents could be initiated under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without prior court approval or intervention.

Additional parties can be joined to an action only through a counterclaimwhenthat counterclaimalso is asserted against an existing party. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule13, 28 U.S.C.A. MEMORANDUMORDER SCHWARTZ, J. *1 Plaintiff, a manufacturerof wedding gowns and accessories,filed the aboveentitled action alleging, inter alia, trademark infringement, breachof con tract, tortious interference,breachof fiduciary duty, and injurious falsehood.Currently before the court are: i plaintiffs motion, pursuantto Fed.R.Civ.P. 12c and f, to strike certain allegationscontained in defendants’ Answer and Counterclaims "Answer", and for judgmenton the pleadingswith respect to defendant’s sixth and eighth counter claims; ii plaintiffs motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12c and f, to strike defendants’ Amended Answer and Counterclaims "Amended Answer" in its entirety; iii a motion, filed by in dividual plaintiffs/counterclaim defendants Otto Felber, W. Bruce Bailey, Thomas Bachmannand Charles Bunstine, to strike the Amended Answer pursuantto Fed.R.Civ.P.12c, f, and ii, as well as Fed.R.Civ.P. 13, 15, and 21; iv plaintiffs mo tion for sanctionsand defendants’cross-motionfor sanc

THE PARTIES’ EXCLUSIVE VENUE AGREEMENT REQUIRES TRANSFER OF CYBERSITTER’S CLAIMS AGAINST GOOGLE. A. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) Mandates Either Dismissal Or Transfer of CYBERsitter’s Claims Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) apply when a forum selection clause dictates that suit should have been brought elsewhere.

Moreover, Defendants have provided no “good reason” why the letters rogatory should not be issued. See Zassenhaus v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 404 F.2d 1361, 1364 (D.C. Cir. 1968); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(2) (“A letter of request . . . may be issued . . . without a showing that taking the deposition in another manner is impracticable or inconvenient.”); B&L Drilling Elecs.

Federal courts have statutory power under 28 U.S.C. § 1781 and also “inherent” authority to issue letters of request to foreign countries. See United States v. Reagan, 453 F.2d 165, 172 (6th Cir. 1971); see also 28 U.S.C. 1651 (“All Writs Act”) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b). Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this application and issue the attached proposed Letters of Request.

In the United States, “[a] letter of request ... may be issued[] on appropriate terms after an application and notice of it[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 28(b)(2)(A). In determining whether to grant a letter of request, courts consider international comity factors.