DUGGAN O'ROURKE INC. v. THE INTELLIGENT OFFICE SYSTEM, LLC
| DUGGAN O'ROURKE INC. |
| THE INTELLIGENT OFFICE SYSTEM, LLC |
| 1:2012cv00550 |
| April 26, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Denise K. LaRue |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal |
| Plaintiff |
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
35
ORDER denying 34 Defendant's Motion for Sanctions - Because there is no evidence that IOS complied with Rule 11(c)(2), the Court DENIES its motion for sanctions. [Dkt. 34 .]. Duggan had a plausible basis for believing that because its ri ghts under the franchise agreement had been transferred and IOS had entered into a new franchise agreement with the non-party, the forum-selection clause contained in its agreement with IOS was no longer enforceable. While that position did not succeed, it was not sanctionable under Rule 11. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/1/2012. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER - For the reasons detailed herein, the Court concludes that the forum-selection clause in Duggan's Franchise Agreement with IOS is enforceable, applicable to this action, and mandatory in these circumstances. Therefore, IOS's motion is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that it seeks enforcement of the forum-selection clause in the Franchise Agreement with Duggan. 23 IOS's motion and Duggan's response only contemplate dismissal of this case if the forum selection clau se applies; however, enforcing a forum-selection clause typically implicates 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Because the parties did not consider the possibility of transfer under § 1404(a), IOS's motion is DENIED IN PART to the extent that it seeks immediate dismissal of Duggan's action. Instead, by September 21, 2012, Duggan is ordered to report whether it prefers that this action be dismissed without prejudice to be refiled in Colorado or transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). IOS may object or consent to Duggan's report within 7 days thereafter. No reply will be necessary. (S.O.). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/14/2012. (MAC)
|
|
Filing
14
ORDER - Because the third motion requesting a one-day extension supersedes the first two motions that requested hourly extensions for which the proposed deadline has already passed, the Court DENIES the first two motions for extension of time as moot. Dkts. 10 ; 11 . The Court GRANTS Intelligent Office's final motion for extension of time, dkt. 12 , and hereby extends the deadline for it to file a response to the Court's order concerning its jurisdiction over this matter un til May 18, 2012. This is the final extension that the Court will grant Intelligent Office on this issue. As the party seeking removal, Intelligent Offices has the burden to prove that this Court has jurisdiction. See Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc.< /I>, 985 F.2d 908, 911 (7th Cir. 1993) (holding that "any doubt regarding jurisdiction should be resolved in favor of the states" and "the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party seeking removal"). If Int elligent Office fails to file a jurisdictional statement by May 18, 2012 that substantially complies with the Court's order or its burden as the removing party to establish that this Court has jurisdiction, the Court will remand this case to s tate court. Defense counsel is further ordered to explain how he could, consistent with his obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, assert diversity jurisdiction in his notice of removal when he did not have actual knowledge of the citizenship of his client as defined by federal law. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/18/2012. (JKS)
|
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
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: DUGGAN O'ROURKE INC. v. THE INTELLIGENT OFFICE SYSTEM, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: DUGGAN O'ROURKE INC. | |
| Represented By: | Courtney Lee Campbell |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: THE INTELLIGENT OFFICE SYSTEM, LLC | |
| Represented By: | P. Adam Davis |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
