Opinion
Case No. 05-cv-352-PB.
March 14, 2006
ORDER
The complaint was properly served in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and New Hampshire law. Defendant does not assert that it failed to receive timely notice of the action. The court plainly has specific personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Thus, defendant's venue challenge is governed by 28 U.S.C. 2404(a). When I evaluate the defendant's request to change venue using the criteria outlined in Coady v. Ashcraft Gerel, 223 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2001), it is apparent that the case should remain in this district. The motion to dismiss (doc. no. 6) is denied.
SO ORDERED.