Without his consent, Rehtmeyer and RDC sold or otherwise shared "Who's The Wiseguy" with ATE and Poses, and all four worked together to bring "Loaded Questions" to market. Plaintiff did not authorize any of the defendants to use any part of "Who's The Wiseguy." See Compl. RDC currently identifies "Loaded Questions" as one of its "successes." See id. "Loaded Questions" is identical or substantially similar to "Who's The Wiseguy." See Compl.
A ( Business Week Enterprize Article dated 11/9/98). Shortly hereafter, Poses and ATE began to produce and distribute a game called "Loaded Questions." See Compl. to Dismiss or Transfer (Rehtmeyer Aff.) ¶ 9), and the signature on his affidavit appears to be identical to the signature on the "Disclosure Agreement." See Compl. Plaintiff has referred to that "Disclosure Agreement" as proof that he had a contractual relationship with RDC, see Pl.'s Opp'n at 3 (citing Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss or Transfer (Rehtmeyer Aff.) ¶ 6, 9, Ex. ¶ 18.ĭefendants have submitted a copy of a "Disclosure Agreement" claiming that it is the contract at issue. Relying on RDC's expertise, plaintiff did not commercialize the game. Rehtmeyer, on behalf of RDC, evaluated the game and mailed a written report to the plaitiff in Connecticut stating that the game had no commercial viability. Plaintiff mailed "Who's The Wiseguy?" to RDC in Illinois along with the requisite payment and completed Disclosure Agreement form. In return, he received in Connecticut a package of information from RDC regarding its services and fees, including a "Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement" form. He then contacted Rehtmeyer in Illinois to obtain information regarding game testing and evaluation services provided by RDC. Plaintiff created a copyrighted game called "Who's The Wiseguy." See Compl. The allegations of the complaint, which are assumed to be true for purposes of this ruling, establish the following facts. For reasons set forth below, RDC's Rule 12(b)(2) motion is denied, defendants' Rule 12(b)(3) motion is denied, and defendants' motion to transfer is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. RDC has moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and all defendants have moved to dismiss the action for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the Northern District of Illinois ("Northern District"). ("ATE"), a Florida corporation and Eric Poses ("Poses"), who was a resident of Florida at the time the action was filed. ("RDC"), an Illinois corporation Carol Rehtmeyer ("Rehtmeyer"), a resident of Illinois All Things Equal, Inc. Plaintiff, a citizen of Connecticut, brings this action, against Rehtmeyer Design Co. Both of these nonparty witnesses are beyond the subpoena power of this court and therefore could not be compelled to appear here. to Dismiss or Transfer (Rehtmeyer Aff.) ¶ 10, 13-14, which is important because it would tend to show that the alleged similarity between the games is not the product of a conspiracy to infringe plaintiff's copyright. According to defendants, the reviewer and consultant are expected to testify that neither game was unique, see Defs.' Mem. to Dismiss or Transfer (Rehtmeyer Aff.) ¶ 10, 14-15. Defendants contend that there are at least two such witnesses who are vital to their defense - the "independent Illinois contract reviewer" hired by Rehtmeyer to review plaintiff's game, and the Independent Illinois based consultant hired by Rehtmeyer to review Poses's game. The single most important factor raised by the motion to transfer concerns nonparty witnesses.346, 348 (S.D.N Y 1988) ("Therefore, where motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue are joined with a motion to transfer, the transfer motion may be considered first."). 1978) (adopting Judge Weinfeld's statement of the law in Volk) see also Alexander Alexander, Inc. "However, the Court need not resolve them, since it has power to transfer the case even if there is no personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and whether or not venue is proper in this district, if a transfer would be in the interest of justice." Volk Corp. The issues of personal jurisdiction and venue presented by the defendants' motions are somewhat complicated.Several categories keep the questions varied and hilarious. Straightforward rules are simple to learn. Select a reader and listen up!Īfter the giggles have subsided and you catch your breath, match the answer with the correct player - how well do you know your friends?įill in a circle (located at the top of your answer sheet) for each answer correctly matched. Read the question and everybody writes down an answers. Who said what? It's up to you to find out.
0 kommentar(er)
