UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

WABASH POWER EQUIPMENT, CO., and )

NICKELSON INDUSTRIAL SERVICE, INC., )

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO.: 2:13-CV-202-TLS

)

BTU STATE LINE, LLC, )

BTU SOLUTIONS, LLC, )

BTU SOLUTIONS DE, LLC, and )

STATE LINE ENERGY, LLC, )

Defendants. )

ORDER

The Plaintiffs have sued the entities they believe are responsible for the harm the

Plaintiffs incurred in connection with an auction of equipment from an electrical plant in

Hammond, Indiana. Defendants BTU State Line LLC’s, BTU Solutions, LLC’s, BTU Solutions

DE, LLC’s, and State Line Energy, LLC, have moved to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that the

Plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief against any of the Defendants. The BTU

Defendants also moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) on grounds that there

is no jurisdiction over them in the Northern District of Indiana. The Plaintiffs filed a response on

August 29, 2013, and Defendants filed a reply on September 16, 2013. On November 20, 2013,

this Court referred the Motion to Dismiss to Magistrate Judge John E. Martin for a report and

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 

On March 13, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation setting

forth a recommendation that the Court deny the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’

Complaint. Specifically, that the Court deny the request to dismiss for failure to state a claim,

and deny without prejudice and with leave to refile the request to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Plaintiffs be allowed to
conduct discovery on the question of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to a schedule set by the

Magistrate Judge.

This Court’s review of the Magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is governed

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) which provides in part:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is

made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings and recommendations made by the magistrate. The judge may also

receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate with

instructions.

Objections to the Magistrate’s Judge’s Report and Recommendations must be made within

fourteen days of service of a copy of the Report. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No party has filed an

objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

Upon review of the parties’ submissions and the Report and Recommendation, the Court

ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 31] in its entirety and thereby:

(1) DENIES the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim [ECF No. 15]; 

(2) DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction [ECF No. 15]; and

(3) ALLOWS the Plaintiffs to conduct limited discovery on the issue of whether there is

personal jurisdiction over any or all of the BTU Defendants in Indiana, pursuant to a

separate schedule order issued by the Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED on March 31, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

2