Computer Automation Systems, Inc. v. Intelutions, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER granting 16 Motion to Hold in Abeyance, Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be held in abeyance until such time as Defendant's 13 Motion to Dismiss is decided by the Court. Further if Defendant wishes to file a response on the the merits to Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, such response must be filed no later than 2/1/13. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes, III on January 25, 2013. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HARRISON DIVISION
COMPUTER AUTOMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
v.

PLAINTIFF

Case No. 3:12-CV-03146

INTELUTIONS, INC.

DEFENDANT
ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant Intelutions, Inc.’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance (Doc. 16). In
the Motion, Defendant asks the Court to hold in abeyance its ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) until Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction and Improper Venue (Doc. 13) is decided.
Initially, the Court observes that “[b]efore a district court can reach the merits of a dispute
and enter legally binding orders, it must determine as a threshold matter whether it possesses
personal jurisdiction over the defendants.” Falkirk Min. Co. v. Japan Steel Works, Ltd., 906 F.2d
369, 372 (8th Cir. 1990). Unless there is a basis for the Court’s personal jurisdiction over a
defendant, any orders issued by the court that affect the defendant’s rights and privileges will lack
legal force. Land-O-Nod Co. v. Bassett Furniture Indus., Inc., 708 F.2d 1338, 1340 (8th Cir. 1983)
(“A court must have jurisdiction as a prerequisite to the exercise of discretion.”) (quoting Eighth
Regional War Labor Bd. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 145 F.2d 462, 464 (5th Cir. 1944), cert.
denied, 325 U.S. 883 (1945)). “It has long been the rule that a valid judgment imposing a personal
obligation or duty in favor of the plaintiff may be entered only by a court having jurisdiction over
the person of the defendant.” Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 91 (1978) (citing Pennoyer v.
Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732-33 (1878)).
-1-

Accordingly, as the question of the Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendant has now
been raised, this issue must take precedence over the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, the
Court ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to Hold in Abeyance (Doc. 16) is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2) will be held in abeyance until such time as
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13) is decided by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendant wishes to file a response on the merits to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 2), such response must be filed no later than
Friday, February 1, 2013.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of January, 2013.

/s/P. K. Holmes, III
P.K. HOLMES, III
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-