MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SARA LIOI, District Judge.

Before the Court are motions to dismiss the third-party complaint of defendant/third-party plaintiff C. Norris Manufacturing, LLC ("Norris"). The motions were filed by third-party defendant P.E. Alliance, LLC ("PEA") (Doc. No. 53); third-party defendants Holmbury, Inc. and Holmbury Group, Inc. (collectively, "Holmbury") (Doc. No. 63); and third-party defendant PowerPure, LLC ("PowerPure") (Doc. No. 90).1 For the reasons set forth herein, all three motions are denied without prejudice as moot.2

I. BACKGROUND

On November 26, 2018, The Berg Corporation ("Berg"), a Maryland corporation, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Maryland alleging one count of negligence against Norris, an Ohio limited liability company. On January 4, 2019, Norris removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. (See Doc. No. 1.) On January 15, 2020, that court ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of Ohio. (See Doc. No. 101.)3

The complaint alleges that Berg owned a hydraulic excavator (the "Komatsu"), which it had purchased in fully operational and functional condition from Midlantic Machinery, Inc. for $355,900.00. (Doc. No. 1-2, Complaint ["Compl."] ¶ 4.) Norris took possession of the Komatsu for the purpose of converting it to an ultra-high demolition boom, after representing to Berg that the conversion would require only 20,000 pounds of additional counterweight. (Id. ¶ 5.) Several months later, Norris completed the conversion, delivered the Komatsu in unassembled pieces to Berg in Maryland, and then reassembled it for Berg. (Id. ¶ 6.) Norris had, however, actually added at least 98,000 pounds of additional counterweight and had used couplings that immediately malfunctioned, causing contamination and damage to the Komatsu's hydraulic system, effectively ruining it. (Id. ¶ 7.) Berg alleges that Norris had a duty to safeguard the Komatsu, that Norris breached its duty, and that Berg incurred damages in excess of $1 million as a result. (Id. ¶ 8.)

Norris timely filed an answer and counterclaim (Doc. No. 12), which Berg answered (Doc. No. 18).

Relevant to the instant motions is the third-party complaint filed by Norris against PowerPure, an Ohio limited liability company; Holmbury, an Ohio corporation; and PEA, an Ohio limited liability company. (Doc. No. 15, Third-Party Complaint ["TP Compl."].)4 Norris alleges that, to perform its conversion of the Komatsu, it contracted with PowerPure to supply quick couplers, which PowerPure recommended, selected, and ordered for Norris, and which ultimately failed, allegedly causing damages. (TP Compl. ¶¶ 11-13.) Norris claims that, should it be found liable for the matters alleged in Berg's complaint, such liability would be the result of the breach of contract or the acts and/or omissions of the third-party defendants. (Id. ¶ 16.)

In its third-party complaint, Norris asserts claims of indemnification and contribution against each of the third-party defendants. Norris seeks to hold PowerPure liable for supplying the quick couplers that allegedly failed. (Id. ¶¶ 18-26.) Norris seeks to hold Holmbury liable for designing, engineering, manufacturing, constructing, testing, inspecting, packaging, labeling, marketing, distributing, selling, and/or warranting the quick couplers. (Id. ¶¶ 27-36.) Norris seeks to hold PEA liable for improperly engineering the Komatsu's boom, which caused the additional counterweight. (Id. ¶¶ 37-45.)

II. THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Each of the third-party defendants filed a motion to dismiss prior to the transfer of this case from Maryland, all of which remained pending upon transfer. Each motion argues a lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); but those arguments are now moot, since the case was transferred to Ohio, where there is personal jurisdiction over each of the third parties, by their own admissions.5 (See, Doc. No. 53 at 171 (PEA); Doc. No. 63 at 227 (Holmbury, Inc.6); Doc. No. 90-3 at 331-32 (PowerPure).)

Holmbury and PowerPure also argue that the third-party complaint must be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. PEA raised an independent argument urging dismissal under the Maryland Certificate of Merit statute. (See Doc. No. 89 (citing CJ §§ 3-2C-01, et seq.); see also Doc. No. 91, Opposition.) PEA argues that Norris' alleged non-compliance with that statute is an absolute defense requiring dismissal of the third-party complaint. The parties' arguments as to these motions are all based on Maryland law, which, following the transfer, is inapplicable when considering common law claims of indemnification and contribution. This Court, sitting in Ohio, applies Ohio law. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 S.Ct. 1188 (1938) ("Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state."). Since none of the motions to dismiss base their arguments on Ohio law, all three motions to dismiss are denied without prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, the three pending motions to dismiss (Doc. No. 53 [PEA], Doc. No. 63 [Holmbury], and Doc. No. 90 [PowerPure]) are all denied without prejudice.

The third-party defendants are granted fourteen (14) days from the date of this order to move or otherwise plead under Ohio law with respect to the third-party complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.