PETMAS INVESTORS LTD. v. SAMEIET HOLBERGS GATE 19 et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 ; Dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint ***CIVIL CASE TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 12/4/2014. (eaj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_____________________________________
:
PETMAS INVESTORS LTD,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
SAMEIET HOLBERGS GATE 19, et al., :
:
Defendants.
:
_____________________________________:

Civ. Action No.: 13-6807(FLW)(LHG)

ORDER

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by way of the Complaint filed by

Petmas Investors Ltd (“Plaintiff”), as well as the Court’s November 19, 2013 Order to Show
Cause as to the bases pursuant to which this Court may exercise jurisdiction over the Complaint;
it appearing that the Complaint asks the Court to (1) quash the summons served upon Plaintiff
with regard to an action pending in the Oslo District Court in the Kingdom of Norway or (2)
dismiss the pending complaint in the same action in Norway; it appearing that this matter was
referred to the Honorable Lois H. Goodman, U.S.M.J., pursuant to Federal Rule 72 and Local
Civil Rule 72.1; it appearing that the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
dated November 18, 2014, recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction; it appearing that the Magistrate Judge found that the Hague
Service Convention may provide the basis for an affirmative defense, but does not create a
private right of action, that the Magistrate Judge found that the Declaratory Judgment Act “does
not create a private right of action where one does not already exist,” and that the Magistrate
Judge weighed equitable considerations used by the Northern District of Illinois in Basic v.

Fitroy, 949 F. Supp. 1333, 1338 (N.D. Ill. 1996) in declining to exercise discretionary
jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and found that all factors militate against the
exercise of discretionary authority, see Order dated November 18, 2014; it further appearing that
Plaintiff has not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation; accordingly, for the
reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation:
IT IS on this 4th day of December, 2014,
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation November 18, 2014
is hereby ADOPTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Complaint is DISMISSED.

/s/ Freda L. Wolfson
Freda L. Wolfson
United States District Judge