Summary
finding conduct occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiff's efforts to sell to the city and where the defendant made representations and a sale to the city occurred, and in the District of Massachusetts, finding the defendant's failure to make a payment to the plaintiff occurred at the defendant's principal place of business
Summary of this case from Zero Techs. v. The Clorox Co.Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1054.
October 20, 2010
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2010, upon careful consideration of defendant Big Belly's motion to dismiss or alternatively to transfer venue (docket no. 6), plaintiff TriState's opposition thereto, and Big Belly's reply, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
The motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED.
The motion to dismiss Count IV, TriState's claim under the Lanham Act, is GRANTED.
The motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a compulsory counterclaim is DENIED.
The motion to dismiss the complaint for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) is DENIED.
The motion to transfer venue to the District of Massachusetts is GRANTED, and the Clerk shall transfer this action to the District of Massachusetts.
The discovery conference scheduled for November 3, 2010, is canceled.