EMED Technologies Corporation v. Repro-Med Systems, Inc., 2:18-CV-00163-JRG-RSP. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20190304a75
Visitors: 1
Filed: Feb. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Now before the Court is the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26) by Magistrate Judge Payne, which recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) be denied. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the present action not be dismissed, but transferred to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
Summary: ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP , District Judge . The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. Now before the Court is the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26) by Magistrate Judge Payne, which recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) be denied. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the present action not be dismissed, but transferred to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. ..
More
ORDER
RODNEY GILSTRAP, District Judge.
The above entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. Now before the Court is the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26) by Magistrate Judge Payne, which recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 7) be denied. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the present action not be dismissed, but transferred to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. No party has objected to the Report & Recommendation.
Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26), Defendants' motion (Dkt. No. 7) and reply (Dkt. No. 15), and Plaintiff's response (Dkt. No. 12) and sur-reply (Dkt. No. 16), the Court concludes that the Report & Recommendation is correct and is hereby ADOPTED. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
So ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
