Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hadron Industries, Inc. v. Triangle Experience Group, Inc., 1:18-10830-LTS. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts Number: infdco20190110b74 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jan. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOCS. NO. 17, 19) LEO T. SOROKIN , District Judge . After careful review of the complaint, pending motions, and related papers, the Court finds that the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the potential witnesses, judicial economy, and the interests of justice are served by transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1404(a). 1 The motions to dismiss, Docs. No. 17, 19, are the
More

ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOCS. NO. 17, 19)

After careful review of the complaint, pending motions, and related papers, the Court finds that the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the potential witnesses, judicial economy, and the interests of justice are served by transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1404(a).1 The motions to dismiss, Docs. No. 17, 19, are therefore ALLOWED IN PART, only to the extent they seek transfer, and are DENIED AS MOOT in all other respects. Whether Massachusetts law applies to any or all of the conduct alleged in the Complaint is not a question resolved by this Order. Similarly, transfer is warranted whether or not the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any or all of the defendants. Accordingly, the Court need not resolve that dispute. The Clerk shall transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented." This case could have properly been brought in the Eastern District of Virginia because "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred" in that District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
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