AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

KDH ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, INC., et al. v. CURTIS TECHNOLOGY LTD., et al.

ORDER

MARY McLAUGHLIN, District Judge

AND NOW, this 19th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of Defendants Thomas E. Curtis's and Michael J. Curtis's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 73), the plaintiffs' response, and defendants' reply thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, for the reasons stated in a memorandum of today's date, that the defendants' motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1. The defendants' motion to dismiss defendant Michael J. Curtis for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED;

2. The defendants' motion to dismiss defendant Thomas Curtis for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED; and

3. The defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' breach of contract claims against defendant Thomas Curtis for failure to state a claim is DENIED without prejudice.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

KDH ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, INC. v. CURTIS TECHNOLOGY LTD. (E.D.Pa. 3-19-2010)
(Mar 19, 2010)