RIVERA v. BODY ARMOR OUTLET, LLC, 2:17-cv-02261-MMD-NJK. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20171024l47
Visitors: 4
Filed: Oct. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2017
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Plaintiff Alejandro Rivera's claims arise from injuries allegedly sustained from an incident where he tested the safety of equipment purchased online from Defendant Body Armor Outlets, LLC ("Body Armor") that were manufactured by Ace Welding Co. ("Ace Welding"). (ECF No. 1-1 at 6-7.) Ace moves to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that Ace is a New Hampshire based company that does not have the required contacts with Nevada for pur
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Plaintiff Alejandro Rivera's claims arise from injuries allegedly sustained from an incident where he tested the safety of equipment purchased online from Defendant Body Armor Outlets, LLC ("Body Armor") that were manufactured by Ace Welding Co. ("Ace Welding"). (ECF No. 1-1 at 6-7.) Ace moves to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that Ace is a New Hampshire based company that does not have the required contacts with Nevada for purp..
More
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Plaintiff Alejandro Rivera's claims arise from injuries allegedly sustained from an incident where he tested the safety of equipment purchased online from Defendant Body Armor Outlets, LLC ("Body Armor") that were manufactured by Ace Welding Co. ("Ace Welding"). (ECF No. 1-1 at 6-7.) Ace moves to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that Ace is a New Hampshire based company that does not have the required contacts with Nevada for purposes of general or specific jurisdiction. (ECF No. 17.) Body Armor similarly moves for dismissal or, in the alternatively, to transfer venue to the District of New Hampshire. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff opposes both motions (ECF No. 25, 26). However, Plaintiff has moved to transfer venue to the District of New Hampshire, based on the disclosure of a potential third party who operates out of Massachusetts. (ECF No. 33 at 5-8.) Body Armor joins Plaintiff's motion to transfer. (ECF No. 34.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff and Body Armor that the proper venue is the District of New Hampshire.
It is therefore ordered that Body Amor's alternative motion to transfer venue (ECF No. 18) and Plaintiff's motion to transfer venue (ECF No. 33) are granted. This action will be transferred to the District of New Hampshire.
The Clerk is directed to effectuate the transfer of venue and close this case.
Source: Leagle
