Motorscope, Inc. v. Precision Tune, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER: Motorscope's request that the Court decide Precision Tune's Motion to Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer 2 without oral argument is DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 07/26/2012. (jmf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Motorscope, Inc.,
Plaintiff,

Civ. No. 12-1296 (SRN/AJB)

v.
ORDER
Precision Tune, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

J. Michael Dady and Kristy L. Zastrow, Dady & Gardner, PA, 5100 IDS Tower, 80 South
Eighth Street, Suite 5100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, for Plaintiff.
Eric L. Yaffe, Gray Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett PA, The Watergate--Suite 700, 600
New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, District of Columbia 20037, and Ashley M.
Bennett Ewald, Gray Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett, PA, 80 South Eighth Street, Suite
500, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Motorscope, Inc. (“Motorscope”) filed the present action in this Court on May 30,
2012. (Doc. No. 1.) The next day, Precision Tune, Inc. (“Precision Tune”) filed an
action against Motorscope regarding the same underlying conduct in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On June 13, 2012, Precision Tune
moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer this action to the Eastern District of Virginia. (Doc.
No. 2.) On June 20, 2012, Motorscope moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer the action in
the Eastern District of Virginia to the District of Minnesota. On July 24, 2012,
Motorscope requested that this Court promptly rule on Precision Tune’s Motion to

Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay without oral argument. Precision Tune responded on July 25,
2012, seeking a denial of Motorscope’s request.
Precision Tune’s Motion to Dismiss, Stay, or Transfer is scheduled to be heard
next Wednesday, August 1, 2012, and the Court anticipates that it will be able to rule
from the bench, after considering each party’s oral argument. Therefore, Motorscope’s
request is denied and this matter will proceed with oral argument on August 1, 2012.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Motorscope’s request that the Court decide Precision Tune’s Motion to Dismiss,
Stay, or Transfer (Doc. No. 2) without oral argument is DENIED.

Dated: July 26, 2012

s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge