Relion Manufacturing, Inc. v. Tri-Pac, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER that the Defendant's 22 Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation are OVERRULED; the 21 Memorandum and Recommendation is ACCEPTED; and the Defendant's 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative Transfer and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 7/7/2018. (khm)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00282-MR-DLH

RELION MANUFACTURING, INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TRI-PAC, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to Transfer
and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Doc. 6]; the Magistrate
Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 21] regarding the
disposition of that motion; and the Defendant’s Objections to the
Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 22].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation
of this Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate
Judge, was designated to consider the Defendant’s motion and to submit a
recommendation for its disposition.

On May 22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and
Recommendation in this case containing conclusions of law in support of a
recommendation regarding the motion to dismiss and alternative motion to
transfer. [Doc. 21]. The parties were advised that any objections to the
Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in
writing within fourteen (14) days of service. The Defendant timely filed
Objections on June 5, 2018. [Doc. 22].
After careful consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation
and the Plaintiff’s Objections thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate
Judge’s proposed conclusions of law are correct and consistent with current
case law. Further, upon careful consideration of the relevant factors, the
Court in its discretion declines to transfer this matter. Accordingly, the Court
hereby overrules the Plaintiff’s Objections and accepts the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation that the motion to dismiss and alternative motion
to transfer should be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Objections to the
Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 22] are OVERRULED; the
Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 21] is ACCEPTED; and the
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the

2

Alternative Transfer and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim [Doc.
6] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 7, 2018

3