welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Massachusetts| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2018
  5. Cote v. U.S. Silica Company, 4:18-CV-01440. (2018)

Cote v. U.S. Silica Company, 4:18-CV-01440. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20181102k92 Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER MATTHEW W. BRANN , District Judge . AND NOW , this 1 st of November 2018, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant U.S. Silica Company's Motion for a More Definite Statement, July 23, 2018, ECF No. 28 is GRANTED . Plaintiff's amended complaint will be due in accordance with the deadlines set forth in paragraph 2(a) of this Order. 2. Defendant Schnell Industries' Motion to Dismiss, July 23, 2018, ECF No. 29 is GRANTED in pa
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 1st of November 2018, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant U.S. Silica Company's Motion for a More Definite Statement, July 23, 2018, ECF No. 28 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's amended complaint will be due in accordance with the deadlines set forth in paragraph 2(a) of this Order. 2. Defendant Schnell Industries' Motion to Dismiss, July 23, 2018, ECF No. 29 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. a. Insofar as the motion is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) it is GRANTED. Leave is provided for Plaintiff Dayton Cote to engage in jurisdictional discovery with Defendant Schnell Industries. This jurisdictional discovery shall be completed within sixty (60) days. At the conclusion of the jurisdictional discovery, Plaintiff Cote will be provided an additional two weeks thereafter within which to file an amended complaint stating the basis for personal jurisdiction over Defendant Schnell Industries. b. Insofar as Schnell Industries' motion is made as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) it is DENIED without prejudice with leave to re-raise if personal jurisdiction is established. 3. Plaintiff's two discovery dispute letters, ECF Nos. 36 and 37, October 5, 2018, are premature. They will be held for disposition until the time of the initial case management conference between the Court and counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. That said, I encourage the parties to voluntarily engage in discovery pending said conference to speed the resolution of this matter, to the extent that they are able to do so.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
4:18-CV-01440.
Counsels
  • Thomas A. Lynam, III
  • John T. Pion
  • Bradley N. Sprout
  • Timothy A. Montgomery
  • Maureen Rowan
  • Jeffrey B. McCarron
Similar Cases

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