Macy's Corporate Services, Inc. DBA Macy's Logistics and Operations v. MXD Group, Inc.

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Stay Determination of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss to Allow Plaintiff to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery # 10 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The request for a stay is denied. The request for 90 days to conduct jurisdictional discovery before Plaintiff must respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer per forum non conveniens is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines set in the September 27, 2016 hearing are amended as follows: Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant's motion for transfer of this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York based on the forum selection provision in the parties' Agreement no later than October 7, 2016. Any reply on this issue may be filed no later than October 17, 2016.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 9/27/16. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MACY’S CORPORATE
SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MXD GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:16 CV 1045 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A hearing was held in this matter on September 27, 2016, to discuss
Defendant MXD Group, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction, or, alternatively, to transfer venue [Doc. 9] and Plaintiff Macy’s
Corporate Services, Inc.’s motion for a stay of determination of Defendant’s
motion to allow Plaintiff to conduct jurisdictional discovery [Doc. 10]. As
discussed at the hearing, while I will grant Plaintiff 90 days to conduct
jurisdictional discovery before responding to Defendant’s motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction, as discovery on personal jurisdiction
proceeds, we will also move ahead with briefing the issue of whether I should
transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York based on the forum selection provision in the parties’ Transfer and

Delivery Agreement.
At the hearing, Defendant requested 20 days in which to file a brief on
transfer under the forum selection provision, but given that Defendant’s
motion to dismiss already addresses this request, Defendant need not file
another brief on this issue. Rather, I will amend the deadlines set in today’s
hearing and order Plaintiff to file a response only on the issue of whether the
case should be transferred to New York per the forum selection provision in
the Agreement no later than October 7, 2017.

While I will not stay

determination of whether the case should be transferred per the forum selection
provision, Plaintiff may have 90 days to conduct jurisdictional discovery
before it must respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the issues of
personal jurisdiction and transfer to Ohio per forum non conveniens.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Stay
Determination of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to Allow Plaintiff to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery #[10] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
The request for a stay is denied.

The request for 90 days to conduct

jurisdictional discovery before Plaintiff must respond to Defendant’s motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer per forum non conveniens

2

is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadlines set in the September
27, 2016 hearing are amended as follows: Plaintiff shall file a response to
Defendant’s motion for transfer of this case to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York based on the forum selection provision
in the parties’ Agreement no later than October 7, 2016. Any reply on this
issue may be filed no later than October 17, 2016.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 27th day of September, 2016.

3