IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 19, 2010
KDH ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.
CURTIS TECHNOLOGY LTD., ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mary A. McLAUGHLIN, J.
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.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.