DIGONEX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. QCUE, INC.
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|November 19, 2012
ORDER denying 57 Digonex's Motion for Reconsideration - The Court DENIES Digonex's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Transfer Order (Dkt. 54 ), [dkt. 57 ], to the extent that, while it has considered Digonex's arguments, it declines to alter its August 30, 2012 Order transferring this matter to the Western District of Texas, [dkt. 54 ]. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/19/2012. (JKS)
|August 30, 2012
CLOSED TRANSFER - Transferring this action to Texas would strongly promote the interest of justice. Under the circumstances, transfer is "clearly" proper, Coffey, 796 F.2d at 220 (citation omitted). The Court will, therefore, DENY AS MOOT Qcue's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Improper Venue, [dkt. 35 ]. Because the Court has not considered Qcue's substantive arguments regarding whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over Qcue or wh ether venue here is proper in the first instance, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Digonex's Motion For Leave To File Surreply, [dkt. 51 ], since the Surreply exclusively discusses those issues. The Court also DENIES AS MOOT Digonex's Unopposed Motion For Oral Argument, [dkt. 47 ]. The Clerk is directed to TRANSFER this action to the Western District of Texas. Any previously ordered dates and deadlines are VACATED and any pending motions not addressed above are TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/30/2012.(JKS)
Access additional case information on PACER
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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?