Under Armour, Inc. v. Salt Armour, Inc.

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER permitting jurisdictional discovery and setting completion deadline for such discovery; setting deadline for simultaneous memoranda as to why jurisdiction is appropriate. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 4/15/2015. (dass, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHAMBERS OF

101 WEST LOMBARD STREET
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201
[phone]
[phone] FAX

J. FREDERICK MOTZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

April 15, 2015
MEMO TO COUNSEL RE: Under Armour, Inc. v. Salt Armour, Inc.
Civil No. JFM-15-95
Dear Counsel:
I have reviewed the memoranda submitted in connection with defendant’s motion to
dismiss or to transfer venue.
I have decided that I should permit jurisdictional discovery. The deadline for completing
such discovery is June 2, 2015. Thereafter, you should file simultaneous memoranda, on or
before June 16, 2015 setting forth your positions as to why you believe jurisdiction is
appropriate.
I should point out that in the past in close cases I have transferred the case to a venue
where the case clearly could have been brought because I deem it to be “in the public interest”
for a case to proceed on the merits where a significant jurisdictional issue is being presented.
See, e.g., Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Found. Inc. v. ANB Inv. Mgmt. & Trust Co., 966 F. Supp.
389, 392 (D. Md. 1997); Joseph M. Coleman & Assocs., Ltd. v. Colonial Metals, 887 F. Supp.
116, 120 (D. Md. 1995).
Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed
as an order.
Very truly yours,
/s/

J. Frederick Motz
United States District Judge