PEAVY v. AXELROD

Case No. 17-0142-KD-MU.

JACOB E. PEAVY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE JACOB E. PEAVY REVOCABLE TRUST, and KATIE L. PEAVY, Plaintiffs, v. BARRY AXELROD, Defendant.

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity - Breach of Contract
Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jacob E. Peavy, Plaintiff, represented by Caine O'Rear, III , Hand Arendall, L.L.C..

Jacob E. Peavy, Plaintiff, represented by Brett W. Chalke , Porter Hedges LLP, pro hac vice, Christine Elizabeth H. Hart , Eric D. Wade , Porter Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice & Neil Kenton Alexander , Porter Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice.

Katie L. Peavy, Plaintiff, represented by Caine O'Rear, III , Hand Arendall, L.L.C., Brett W. Chalke , Porter Hedges LLP, pro hac vice, Christine Elizabeth H. Hart , Eric D. Wade , Porter Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice & Neil Kenton Alexander , Porter Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice.

Barry Axelrod, Defendant, represented by James B. Newman , Helmsing, Leach, Herlong, John C. Pipes , Helmsing, Leach, Herlong & William W. Watts, III , Helmsing Leach Herlong Newman & Rouse.


ORDER

KRISTI K. DuBOSE, Chief District Judge.

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, and a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which objection is made, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)1 and dated June 27, 2017, is ADOPTED in part, as the opinion of this Court, as follows:

1) The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Standard of Review and Findings of Fact (doc. 39, p. 2-9).

2) The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Conclusions of Law in Section I (doc. 39, p. 9-13), Section I (A)(ii) with respect to Specific Jurisdiction (doc. 39, p. 20-24), and in Section I (B) (doc. 39, p. 25-27).

3) The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Conclusions of Law in Sections II and III, wherein the Magistrate Judge recommends denial of Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 1406(a) & 1631 (doc. 39, p. 28-43).2

Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1631 and Defendant's motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) are DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Under this statute, the district court must make a de novo determination regarding those findings to which any party objects, and may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's recommendations.
2. Defendant also criticizes the Magistrate Judge's finding that venue would also be proper in the Southern District of California. Specifically, he points out that the Magistrate Judge erroneously cited to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) instead of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), as the initiating venue statute. Next Defendant punctiliously points out that although the Magistrate Judge correctly found that venue would be proper in the Southern District of California, he failed to recite all the supporting facts for this finding. Neither of these objections changes the conclusion.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases