Biomet 3i, LLC et al v. Land

Filing 100

ORDER: ADOPTING 83 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS in its entirety and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's recommendations into this Order. The Court now DENIES 19 the Defendants Combined Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(d). Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 2/27/17. (jld)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
BIOMET 3i, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HEATHER LAND,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 1:16-CV-125-TLS

ORDER
On May 10, 2016, this Court referred the Defendant’s Combined Motion to Transfer
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and
12(d) [ECF No. 19] (the “Combined Motion”) to Magistrate Judge Susan Collins for review, to
conduct any and all necessary evidentiary hearings, and to issue a report and recommendation
that includes proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of the Plaintiff’s
Motion.
On January 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation [ECF
No. 83] that this the Court deny the Defendant’s Combined Motion. For the motion to transfer,
the Magistrate Judge recommended that venue is proper in Indiana because the forum-selection
clause in the parties 2015 Agreement is valid and enforceable. As for the motion to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Magistrate Judge found that the Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of
contract, tortious interference with business relationships, and unfair competition because the
Plaintiffs adequately pleaded their Complaint [ECF No. 1]. And the Magistrate Judge also
recommended denial of the Rule 12(d) motion because there was still a genuine dispute of
material fact between the parties.

The Court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is governed by
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in part:
A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also
receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.
28. U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Furthermore, Rule 72(b) also directs that the Court must only make a de
novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to
which specific written objection has been made. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739
(7th Cir. 1999). If no objection or only a partial objection is made, the Court reviews those
unobjected portions for clear error. Id. In addition, failure to file objections with the district court
“waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.” Id. Under the clear error standard,
the Court can only overturn a magistrate judge’s ruling if the Court is left with “the definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., 126 F.3d
926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).
The Magistrate Judge set forth the facts under the appropriate standard of review and
provided a thorough explanation for determinations made therein. No party has objected to those
findings. Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 83] and finding no clear
error, the Court ADOPTS it in its entirety and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendations into this Order. Accordingly, the Court now DENIES the Defendant’s
Combined Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss
Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(d) [ECF No. 19].

SO ORDERED on February 27, 2017
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT