Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 17-1692-CFC-SRF. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Delaware
Number: infdco20181114a34
Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 09, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2018
Summary: ORDER COLM F. CONNOLLY , District Judge . At Wilmington this Ninth day of November in 2018: WHEREAS, Defendants moved to transfer this action to the Northern District of California (D.I. 20); WHEREAS, under 28 U.S.C. 636(b), Magistrate Judge Fallon issued a Report and Recommendation (D.I. 44) on Defendants' Motion to Transfer; WHEREAS, the Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court DENY Defendants' Motion to Transfer; WHEREAS, the parties did not file any objections to
Summary: ORDER COLM F. CONNOLLY , District Judge . At Wilmington this Ninth day of November in 2018: WHEREAS, Defendants moved to transfer this action to the Northern District of California (D.I. 20); WHEREAS, under 28 U.S.C. 636(b), Magistrate Judge Fallon issued a Report and Recommendation (D.I. 44) on Defendants' Motion to Transfer; WHEREAS, the Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court DENY Defendants' Motion to Transfer; WHEREAS, the parties did not file any objections to ..
More
ORDER
COLM F. CONNOLLY, District Judge.
At Wilmington this Ninth day of November in 2018:
WHEREAS, Defendants moved to transfer this action to the Northern District of California (D.I. 20);
WHEREAS, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Magistrate Judge Fallon issued a Report and Recommendation (D.I. 44) on Defendants' Motion to Transfer;
WHEREAS, the Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court DENY Defendants' Motion to Transfer;
WHEREAS, the parties did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy;
WHEREAS, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted;1
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (D.I. 44) is ADOPTED, and Defendants' Motion to Transfer (D.I. 20) is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. The Court notes, however, that Realtime's forum choice should have been given "paramount consideration" and not any "less deference because Realtime does not maintain a place of business in Delaware." See Realtime Data LLC v. Egnyte, Inc., 2018 WL 5724040 (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2018); VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 2018 WL 5342650 (D. Del. Oct. 29, 2018).
Source: Leagle
