Albritton v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 215

ORDER denying as moot 35 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying as moot 37 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 118 Motion for Hearing; denying 119 Motion for Hearing. If defts require a ruling from the court on the issue of personal jurisdiction, the parties may re-urge their motions with the court by 3-25-09. Signed by Judge Richard A. Schell on 02/27/09. cc:attys 2-27-09 (mll, )

Download PDF
Albritton v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al Doc. 215 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ERIC ALBRITTON, Plaintiff, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., RICHARD FRENKEL, MALLUN YEN and JOHN NOH, Defendants. Case No. 6:08-CV-89 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT JOHN NOH'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND MALLUN YEN'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Pending before the court are "John Noh's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and memorandum in support" (docket entry #35) and "Mallun Yen's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and memorandum in support" (docket entry #37). In light of the court's ruling that summary judgment should be granted with respect to the Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Noh and Yen, the court hereby DENIES AS MOOT Noh's and Yen's respective motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Further, "Defendant John Noh's motion for hearing on his motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction" (docket entry #118) and "Defendant Mallun Yen's motion for hearing on her motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction" (docket entry #119) are DENIED as well. If the Defendants require a ruling from the court on the issue of personal jurisdiction, the parties may re-urge their motions with the court by March 25, 2009. -1- Dockets.Justia.com IT IS SO ORDERED. . SIGNED this the 27th day of February, 2009. _______________________________ RICHARD A. SCHELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?