Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number 98 Civ. 3772 (WK) Attorney(S) Seth T. Taube, Esq., Four Gateway Center, Newark, N.J.; Robert A. Mintz, Esq., McCarter English, L.L.P., New York, New York; Attorneys for Plaintiff Casio Computer Co., Ltd. Fred L. Abrams, Esq., Condominium Playamar, Isla Verde, Puerto Rico, Attorney for Defendant Osamu Sayo. Jacques Debrot, Esq., Debrot Siris, P.C., New York, New York, Attorney for Mitsuyuki Hasegawa. Michael S. Oberman, Esq. And Gary P. Naftalis, Esq, Kramer, Levin, Naftalis Frankel, New York, New York, Attorneys for Defendants Charivari Capital Corporation and Joanne Marlowe. Nancy Prahofer, Esq. And Mishell B. Kneeland, Esq., Dechert Price Rhoads, New York, New York, Attorneys for Theoddor Tsuru. Bernard C. Jasper, Esq., Horowitz Beam, Irvine, California, Attorney for Richard Wolpow. Judges Percy Whitman Knapp See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. CASIO COMPUTER CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. OSAMU SAYO, MITSUYAKI HASEGAWA, THEODDOR TSURU, CRANEST INTERNATIONAL INC., OCEAN VIEW MARKETING LIMITED, EUGEN KAISER, RICHARD WOLPOW, CHARIVARI CAPITAL CORPORATION, JOANNE M. MARLOWE, CRANE LIMITED, JOSEPH ROBERT KELSO, ASHMITA PATEL and WAYNE NISHIYAMA, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER WHITMAN KNAPP, Senior District Judge. We have considered the entire Report and Recommendation in this matter and find it to be an extraordinarily well put together document. We have also considered the arguments presented by the plaintiff and its objections to that Report and Recommendation. As to those objections we conclude: (1) that several of them are sufficiently plausible to warrant discussion; but (2) we would ultimately reject them. However, we find that such undertaking is not necessary because of Magistrate Judge Ellis' final recommendation that we exercise our discretion by dismissing the third amended complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens. Having considered plaintiff's arguments in opposition to such an exercise of discretion, we find that the reasons advanced by Magistrate Judge Ellis are wholly valid and the third amended complaint should be, and it is, dismissed. SO ORDERED.