From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

GmbH v. Acradyne Corporation

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 14, 2006
No. CV. 06-52-PK (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2006)

Opinion

No. CV. 06-52-PK.

March 14, 2006


OPINION AND ORDER


Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss/Strike Plaintiff's Complaint on February 9, 2006 (#9). Oral argument was held on March 14, 2006. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. Defendant's Motion to Strike is GRANTED and plaintiff is ordered to file a First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days removing the following allegations from the Complaint:

1. Paragraph 14, the 3rd and 4th sentences, including Exhibit A.
2. Paragraph 19, the 2nd sentence, including Exhibit B, and the phrase within parenthesis in the 1st sentence ("[and, indeed, the world through their product catalogs and other publicity-disseminated materials]).

3. Paragraph 20 in its entirety.

4. Paragraph 22, the 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th sentences and the phrase "and the other distributors" in the 4th sentence.
5. Paragraph 24, the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sentences.

6. Paragraph 25, the 2nd sentence.

7. Paragraph 27, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences, including Exhibit C.

8. Paragraph 32 in its entirety.

Plaintiff may amend Paragraph 19 to reference with specificity which product catalogs represented that defendants' tools were "CE Certified" and were relied upon by plaintiff.

Defendants' objections to the phrase "among other things" in Paragraph 19 as unrelated to the claim of fraud is noted but denied.


Summaries of

GmbH v. Acradyne Corporation

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Mar 14, 2006
No. CV. 06-52-PK (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2006)
Case details for

GmbH v. Acradyne Corporation

Case Details

Full title:MINT GmbH, Plaintiff, v. ACRADYNE CORPORATION, and AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIAL…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Mar 14, 2006

Citations

No. CV. 06-52-PK (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2006)