Luvata Electrofin, Inc. et al v. Metal Processing International, L.P. et al
| Luvata Electrofin Texas, Inc. and Luvata Electrofin, Inc. |
| Metal Processing International, L.P., Oklahoma Custom Coating, LLC, Roy Foster and Russ Meredith |
| 3:2011cv00398 |
| July 14, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Louisville Office |
| Jefferson |
| Charles R. Simpson |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
33
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 9/7/12; Luvata has not set forth a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction over MPI and OCC is proper, and, accordingly, the motion to dismiss made by those parties will be granted. As for Foster and Merediths motion to dismiss, it will be granted in part to the extent of dismissing as preempted the breach of fiduciary duty claims, but it will be denied as to the misappropriation of trade secrets claims. Because this court has ren dered a decision on the motions to dismiss, the motion to stay Luvatas preliminary injunction motion will be denied and Luvatas motion to expedite discovery will be granted to the extent of ordering a scheduling conference to be held before Magistrate Judge Dave Whalin. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this opinion.cc:counsel (DAK)
|
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 Kentucky Western 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.
