Airtel Wireless, LLC v. Montana Electronics Co.
District Court, D. Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
FRANK, District Judge.
Introduction
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned United States District Judge on December 10, 2004, pursuant to Defendants Montana Electronics Company, Inc.’s (“MECO”), Dale Hickman’s and Angie Hickman’s (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Plaintiff Airtel Wireless, LLC’s (“Airtel”) Motion to Compel Arbitration, Stay Action, and Enjoin Parallel Proceeding. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendants’ motion and grants Plaintiffs…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Neitzke v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1983
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- St. Jude Medical, S.C. v. Biosense Webster, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2014
- Computer Forensic Services, Inc. v. BraunHagey & Borden LLCDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2023
- Ghosh v. Abbott Laboratories Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2024
- Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Avanti Computer Systems LimitedDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2018
- Hitachi Capital America Corp. v. McCollumDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2020
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.