Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corporation

Filing 466

DECISION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 464 and denying without prejudice 448 Motion to Dismiss or to Change Venue. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 09/16/2019. (CDH)

SEP 1 6 2019

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-geWENGOSi

iBilDlSTMQ.
STEUBEN FOODS,INC.,
Plaintiff,

DECISION AND ORDER

1:10-CV-00781 EAW

V.

SHIBUYA HOFFMANN CORF., SHIBUYA
KOGYO CO. LTD, and HF HOOD LLC,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Steuben Foods, Ine.("Plaintiff) has sued Defendants Shibuya Hoppmann

Corp., Shibuya Kogyo Co. Ltd., and HF Hood LLC (collectively "Defendants") for patent
infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq. (Dkt. 1). On April 15, 2013, this matter was

referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy for hearing and disposition of all nondispositive motions or applications, supervision of discovery, and to hear and report upon
dispositive motions for consideration by the district judge. (Dkt. 112).
On July 13, 2017, Defendants filed a motion asking the Court to dismiss the

complaint based on improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the matter to the
United States District Court for the District ofDelaware. (Dkt. 340). On January 16,2018,

Judge McCarthy entered a report and recommendation in which he recommended that the
Court deny Defendants' motion without prejudice to renewal upon completion of claim

-1-

construction. (Dkt. 371). Defendants filed objections to the R&R (Dkt. 372), which the

Court overruled on March 16, 2018 (Dkt. 380). Defendants thereafter sought a writ of
mandamus from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which denied the request on
May 1, 2018. (See Dkt. 397). However, the Federal Circuit noted that it "expect[ed] that
the district court will promptly resolve the venue issues...." (Id. at 4).

On February 28,2019, Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss or transfer(Dkt.

448), on the same grounds as raised in their first motion. On August 20, 2019, Judge
McCarthy entered a report and recommendation (Dkt. 464)(the "R&R") in which he
recommended denying the motion "without prejudice to renewal once [the undersigned]
has ruled on the pending objections to [Judge McCarthy's] October 1, 2018 Report and
Recommendation [Dkt. 246]"(id. at 2). No party filed objections to the R&R.
DISCUSSION
I.

Standard of Review

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), where a party makes specific objections to a

magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district judge must "make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). "The Court
reviews unobjected-to findings for clear error." Am. Ins. Co. v. City ofJamestown,914 F.
Supp. 2d 377, 384(W.D.N.Y. 2012). After conducting its review, the Court may "accept.

-2-

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
II.

The Court Adopts the R&R

As noted above, no party has objected to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court has
reviewed it for clear error and, having found none,adopts the R&R in its entirety and denies
Defendants' pending motion to dismiss or transfer without prejudice. The Court notes that
it has now resolved the outstanding objections to Judge McCarthy's October 1, 2018

Report and Recommendation. {See Dkt. 465). Moreover, given the Court's resolution of

those objections, and in light ofthe Federal Circuit's stated expectation that the venue issue
will be resolved promptly, it strikes the Court that it may no longer be appropriate to
complete claim construction prior to resolving Defendants' venue arguments. Instead, it

appears that this would be an appropriate point in the proceedings for Defendants to file a
renewed motion for consideration on the merits.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R(Dkt. 464)

and the findings and recommendations set forth therein. Defendants' motion to dismiss or,
in the alternative, transfer venue(Dkt. 448)is denied without prejudice to renewal.

so ORDERED.

JEpfA. WOLFOI
States District Judge

Dated: September 16, 2019
Rochester, New York

-4-