Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

PEAVY v. AXELROD, 17-0142-KD-MU. (2017)

Court: District Court, S.D. Alabama Number: infdco20170810802 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 09, 2017
Summary: ORDER KRISTI K. DuBOSE , Chief District Judge . After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) 1 and dated June 27, 2017, is ADOPTED in part, as the opinion of this Court, as follows: 1) The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Standard of Review and Findings of Fact (doc. 39, p. 2-9). 2) The Court ado
More

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)1 and dated June 27, 2017, is ADOPTED in part, as the opinion of this Court, as follows:

1) The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Standard of Review and Findings of Fact (doc. 39, p. 2-9).

2) The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Conclusions of Law in Section I (doc. 39, p. 9-13), Section I (A)(ii) with respect to Specific Jurisdiction (doc. 39, p. 20-24), and in Section I (B) (doc. 39, p. 25-27).

3) The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Conclusions of Law in Sections II and III, wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends denial of Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 1406(a) & 1631 (doc. 39, p. 28-43).2

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1631 and Defendant's motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) are DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Under this statute, the district court must make a de novo determination regarding those findings to which any party objects, and may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's recommendations.
2. Defendant also criticizes the Magistrate Judge's finding that venue would also be proper in the Southern District of California. Specifically, he points out that the Magistrate Judge erroneously cited to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) instead of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), as the initiating venue statute. Next Defendant punctiliously points out that although the Magistrate Judge correctly found that venue would be proper in the Southern District of California, he failed to recite all the supporting facts for this finding. Neither of these objections changes the conclusion.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer