SAMRAT CONTAINER LINES, INC. v. SAFEWATER LINES INDIA PVT, LTD., 14-6110 (SRC). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Number: infdco20150702c70
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 2015
Summary: STANLEY R. CHESLER , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the motion for reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order entered on May 21, 2015 by Plaintiff SAMRAT Container Lines, Inc. ("SAMRAT"). SAMRAT argues that this Court dismissed the Complaint prematurely, since SAMRAT had not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate that this Court has in personam jurisdiction over Defendant. This Court disagrees. The Complaint, as originally filed, asserts jurisdiction based on
Summary: STANLEY R. CHESLER , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the motion for reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order entered on May 21, 2015 by Plaintiff SAMRAT Container Lines, Inc. ("SAMRAT"). SAMRAT argues that this Court dismissed the Complaint prematurely, since SAMRAT had not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate that this Court has in personam jurisdiction over Defendant. This Court disagrees. The Complaint, as originally filed, asserts jurisdiction based onl..
More
STANLEY R. CHESLER, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the motion for reconsideration of this Court's Opinion and Order entered on May 21, 2015 by Plaintiff SAMRAT Container Lines, Inc. ("SAMRAT"). SAMRAT argues that this Court dismissed the Complaint prematurely, since SAMRAT had not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate that this Court has in personam jurisdiction over Defendant. This Court disagrees. The Complaint, as originally filed, asserts jurisdiction based only on quasi in rem jurisdiction, alleging that the Defendant may not be found within this district. Now, it appears that SAMRAT wishes to proceed on the jurisdictional basis of in personam jurisdiction. If this is the case, SAMRAT must amend the Complaint to assert a basis for in personam jurisdiction. SAMRAT is given leave to amend the Complaint within 30 days of the date of entry of this Order, so that it may assert a basis for in personam jurisdiction. The motion for reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 57) is GRANTED to this extent.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
