MAXIMUM QUALITY FOODS, INC. v. DIMARIA et al

Filing 33

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying 20 Motion to Dismiss filed by JOSEPH DIMARIA, WILLOW PROVISIONS INC., 32 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Jose L. Linares on 4/20/15. (DD, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MAXIMUM QUALITY FOODS, [NC,,

Civil Action No.: 14-6546 (JLL)(JAD)

Plaintiff,
V.

ORDER

JOSEPH DIMARIA AND WILLOW
PROVISIONS INC.,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of Unit
ed States Mag

istrate Judge Joseph
A. Dickson’s March 23, 2015 Report and Recomme
ndation [Docket Entry No. 32],
recommending that the undersigned deny Defendants’ moti
on to dismiss [Docket Entry No. 20].
Magistrate Judge Dickson filed his Report and Recomme
ndation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(l)(B). In particular, Magistrate Judge Dickson recomme
nded that Defendants’ motion be
denied, because the contacts Defendants had with the
State of New Jersey were sufficient to
support a determination that Defendant Willow had purp
osefully availed itself of the privilege
conducting activities in the State of New Jersey. Further,
Judge Dickson found that Defendants’
contacts were “instrumental” in the formation of the parties
’ “Assset Purchase Agreement”, and
thus satisfy the “relatedness” test of the specific jurisdicti
on analysis. In turn, Judge Dickson also
found that it would be appropriate for the District Cou
rt to exercise specific jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs breach of contract claim (i.e., Willow’s brea
ch of the “Asset Purchase Agreement”) as
set forth in the First Count of Plaintiff’s Complaint Finally
, upon consideration of the relevant
factors, Judge Dickson found that it would be “reasonable
to require [Willow] to defend [this] suit
in [New Jersey].” Decker, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 746. Judg
e Dickson found that a New Jersey court’s
exercise of personal jurisdiction over Willow would com
port with traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice. To date, the Court has received
no objections with respect to Magistrate
Judge Dickson’s March23, 2015 Report and Recomme
ndation, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on thisLJ day of April, 2015
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Mag
istrate Judge Dickson, filed on
January 20, 2015 [Docket Entry No. 32], is hereby ADO
PTED as the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of this Court; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket Entry No. 20] is
hereby
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Josp’t,/Linares
States District Judge