AFS Technologies, Inc. v. Harrison et al
| AFS Technologies, Inc. |
| Robert Harrison and Henry Vander Waal |
| 3:2014cv00134 |
| January 31, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Charles S. Haight |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
18
ORDER (see attached) - The parties to the captioned action in this Court are also the parties in an action pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, No. 1:14-cv-94, before District Judge Gord on J. Quist. In a thoughtful and comprehensive opinion filed on April 4, 2014, familiarity with which is assumed, Judge Quist denied ASF Technologies' motion to transfer the Michigan action to this District. This Court agrees entirely with Judg e Quist's conclusions and the reasoning by which he arrives at them. The only way the salutary purposes Judge Quist describes can be achieved is for the action presently pending in this District to be transferred to the Western District of Mich igan, there to be combined with No. 1:14-cv-94 in that Court. In consequence, the Clerk of this Court is directed to transfer this case to the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. This Order is made sua sponte, in application of the fir st-to-file rule and in recognition of the section 1404(a) factors, an aspect of the litigation where this Court's evaluation is the same as that expressed by Judge Quist. After transfer as been completed, the Clerk of this Court is further directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 4/17/14.(Hornstein, A)
|
|
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (see attached) - For the reasons articulated within this Memorandum and Order, the Court declines to enter orders for expedited discovery and evidentiary merits hearings until the threshold question of where this litigation will take place is addressed. Counsel should confer among themselves and then advise this Court's Chambers of three dates and hours during the weeks of February 17 or February 24 when they would all be available for a telephone conference at which t hey must be prepared to discuss the questions raised by this Memorandum and Order, as well as any other related questions or issues. The Court will advise counsel of which date is selected. If counsel have difficulty in agreeing on the dates acceptable to them, the Court will designate the date and hour. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 2/4/14.(Hornstein, A)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
