VERDE v. STONERIDGE, INC., 6:14CV157. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20150326872
Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER , District Judge . The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings, conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of Defendant Arrow Manufacturing Co.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (docket no. 53) and Supplement to its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (docket no. 105) has been presented for consideration. The Rep
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER , District Judge . The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings, conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of Defendant Arrow Manufacturing Co.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (docket no. 53) and Supplement to its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (docket no. 105) has been presented for consideration. The Repo..
More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, District Judge.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings, conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of Defendant Arrow Manufacturing Co.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (docket no. 53) and Supplement to its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (docket no. 105) has been presented for consideration. The Report and Recommendation (docket no. 127) recommends that Defendant's motion to dismiss be denied. Defendant Arrow Manufacturing Co. filed written objections to the Report and Recommendation on March 17, 2015.
Having made a de novo review of the written objections filed by Defendant, the Court concludes that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections are without merit. In light of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Arrow Manufacturing Co.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (docket no. 53) and Supplement to its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (docket no. 105) are DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
