Eastern Concrete Materials, Inc. v. Jamer Materials Limited, 19-9032(SDW)(LDW). (2019)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Number: infdco20191212b68
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2019
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER SUSAN D. WIGENTON , District Judge . Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") entered on October 25, 2019 by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre ("Judge Wettre"), (D.E. 25), recommending that Defendant's motion to dismiss this matter for lack of personal jurisdiction be denied without prejudice and that its alternative motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be granted in part and denied in part. Defendant filed its objections to the R&R on N
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION ORDER SUSAN D. WIGENTON , District Judge . Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") entered on October 25, 2019 by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre ("Judge Wettre"), (D.E. 25), recommending that Defendant's motion to dismiss this matter for lack of personal jurisdiction be denied without prejudice and that its alternative motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be granted in part and denied in part. Defendant filed its objections to the R&R on No..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER
SUSAN D. WIGENTON, District Judge.
Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") entered on October 25, 2019 by Magistrate Judge Leda D. Wettre ("Judge Wettre"), (D.E. 25), recommending that Defendant's motion to dismiss this matter for lack of personal jurisdiction be denied without prejudice and that its alternative motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be granted in part and denied in part. Defendant filed its objections to the R&R on November 15, 2019 and Plaintiff responded on December 6, 2019. (D.E. 29, 30.)
This Court has reviewed the reasons set forth by Judge Wettre in the R&R as well as the other documents in this matter and the parties' filings. Based on the foregoing, and for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED that the R&R of Judge Wettre (Dkt. No. 25) is ADOPTED as the conclusions of law of this Court. Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (D.E. 9), shall be DENIED. Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim shall be GRANTED without prejudice as to Count Six (Tortious Interference with a Prospective Economic Benefit), and DENIED as to Counts One (Breach of Contract), Two (Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Three (Conversion), Four (Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act)1, Count Five (Fraud), and Seven (Unjust Enrichment).
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. This count is improperly labeled "Count VI" in the Complaint.
Source: Leagle
