Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Forefront Machining Technologies, Inc. v. Sarix SA

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Dayton

January 6, 2020

FOREFRONT MACHINING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
SARIX SA, et al., Defendants.

          ENTRY REGARDING INQUIRIES FOR JANUARY 22, 2020 HEARING ON DEFENDANT ALOUETTE TOOL COMPANY, LTD, 'S MOTION TO DISCHARGE ATTACHMENT (DOC. 5)

          THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The following are questions or areas that the Court would like the parties to address either at the January 22, 2020 hearing or in evidentiary submissions made prior to the hearing. If the parties agree, then the Court would be willing to rule on “Defendant Alouette Tool Company, LTD's Request for Hearing on Order of Attachment and Motion to Discharge Attachment” (Doc. 5) without conducting an evidentiary hearing on January 22, 2020, if the inquiries below are addressed in evidentiary submissions made prior to the hearing. (In other words, the Court is willing to rule based on the briefing and evidentiary submissions.) However, the parties need not agree to do so. If the parties do agree to do so, then the Court asks that they submit a joint filing stating the same.[1]

         1. Besides the affidavit of Mr. Nold (see Doc. 1-4 at PAGEID # 308), what evidence is there that SARIX SA (“SARIX”) is a foreign corporation?

         2. Besides the affidavit of Mr. Nold (see Doc. 1-4 at PAGEID # 308), what evidence is there that the property Forefront Machining Technologies, Inc. (“Forefront”) is seeking to attach is located in Ohio?

         3. Was Forefront's first written demand for payment to Alouette Tool Company, LTD (“Alouette”) and SARIX made on September 18, 2019?

a. [If so] Why did it take so long to make a written demand for payment, if the agreement was terminated approximately two-and-a-half years earlier, on February 2, 2017 (see Exhibit 16 to Complaint)?
b. Was the written demand from September 18, 2019 sent by certified mail?
c. What evidence is there that SARIX received that written demand? What about with respect to Alouette?
d. Has there been any response from SARIX to that written demand?
e. Was there any response from Alouette to that written demand - aside from appearing in this case and filing its motion?
i. [If so] When did that happen and what was the response?

         4. Can Forefront confirm that the amount of commissions that it is seeking is $802, 340.77-which is the amount it states on page 4 of its opposition brief (Doc. 8 at PAGEID # 676)?

a. Provide a breakdown of the amounts sought by Forefront into amounts for each machinetool numbered from 1 to 23 (with the Court's understanding being that no commission is still owed for machinetool numbers 1, 2, and 3).
b. Does that breakdown correspond with the alleged damages in Forefront's original motion: “2% of its commission on two machinetools [#4 & 5], 7% of its commission on eight machinetools [# 6-13], and all 10% of its commission on the remaining at-least ten more ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.