Summary
In Iovate Health Sciences, Inc. v. Masuda, No. 08-CV-809A, 2009 WL 2878526 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2009), several Canadian plaintiff companies sought jurisdiction over a Washington State defendant who traded dietary supplements online and whose supplements were found in New York retail store.
Summary of this case from Hume v. Farr's Coach Lines, Ltd.Opinion
08-CV-809A.
September 2, 2009
ORDER
The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On August 11, 2009, Magistrate Judge Scott filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that defendants' motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice and that plaintiffs' motion for jurisdictional discovery be granted. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that defendants' motion to change venue should also be denied without prejudice pending resolution of the jurisdictional question.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record in this case, and the pleadings and materials submitted by the parties, and no objections having been timely filed, it is hereby
ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Scott `s Report and Recommendation, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice and plaintiffs' motion for jurisdictional discovery is granted. In addition, defendants' motion to change venue is also denied without prejudice pending resolution of the jurisdictional question.
The case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Scott for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED.