Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_04-cv-00235/USCOURTS-ared-3_04-cv-00235-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

CONTINENTAL COMPUTER

COMPANY

Plaintiff

VS. 

ROBERT KAGENSKI, 

REVENALDO “CHITO” MARTINEZ,

and ROBERT “ROBBIE” MARTINEZ

Defendants

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

NO: 3:04CV00235 SWW

ORDER

Defendant Reyenaldo “Chito” Martinez (“Martinez”) has filed a motion to dismiss 

(docket entry #56), and Defendants have filed a response (docket entry #57). After careful

consideration, and for the reasons that follow, the motion will be denied.

Defendant Martinez, who proceeds pro se, moves for dismissal based on improper venue.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), the defense of improper venue must be raised

either by a pre-answer motion to dismiss or in a responsive pleading. Martinez answered the

complaint on August 2, 2005, and he failed to include an objection to venue in that pleading. 

Accordingly, Martinez has waived his objection to venue, and his motion to dismiss must be

denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P 12(h)(1).

Martinez states that Plaintiff has failed to provide him a computation of damages as

required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Although the Court finds this allegation insufficient

to warrant dismissal, Plaintiff is directed to provide Plaintiff disclosures required under Rule 26. 

Case 3:04-cv-00235-SWW Document 58 Filed 11/07/05 Page 1 of 2
If Plaintiff fails to do so, Martinez may file a motion to compel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2005.

/s/Susan Webber Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00235-SWW Document 58 Filed 11/07/05 Page 2 of 2