Legal Opinion
S.M.W. Seiko, Inc. v. Howard Concrete Pumping Co.
District Court, D. New Hampshire
Decided October 18, 2001No. Civ. 01-183-JMPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
MUIRHEAD, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the court for consideration is the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and insufficient service of process pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), (3) & (5), or, in the alternative, to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s motion (document no. 6) is denied in its entirety.
Background
Plaintiff S.M.W. Seiko, Inc. (“Seiko”) is a California corporation with offices located throughout the United States, including New Hampshire. Defendant Howard…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Van Dusen v. BarrackSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Quackenbush v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Arthur F. Sawtelle, Etc. v. George E. FarrellCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hardy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and ExplosivesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2017
- S.M.W. Seiko v. Howard ConcreteDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 2001
- Showell v. Division of Family ServicesSupreme Court of Delaware · 2009