S3G Technology LLC v. Domino's Pizza LLC

E.D. Michigan

S3G Technology LLC v. Domino's Pizza LLC

DecidedOctober 2, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-13104

StatusUnknown

This text of S3G Technology LLC v. Domino's Pizza LLC (S3G Technology LLC v. Domino's Pizza LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

S3G Technology LLC v. Domino's Pizza LLC, (E.D. Mich. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 30, 2025 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION BY. NM DEPUTY S3G TECHNOLOGY LLC, § Plaintiff, : v. : NO. WA-24-CV-00395-OLG DOMINO’S PIZZA LLC, : Defendant. ; ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed September 3, 2025, concerning Defendant’s request for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) or transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. § 1406. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 47.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within 14 days. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff, through counsel, was electronically served with a copy of the R&R on September 3, 2025, and timely filed objections on September 17, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 49). When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fep. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the

Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. Upon review, the Court finds that Judge Gilliland correctly applied the law to the facts in this case and, thus, that Plaintiffs objections to the R&R should be and hereby are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 47) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED, and this case is TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of Michigan. Itis so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 7 day of September 2025.

ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

□□

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT September 30, 2025 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION BY. NM DEPUTY S3G TECHNOLOGY LLC, § Plaintiff, : v. : NO. WA-24-CV-00395-OLG DOMINO’S PIZZA LLC, : Defendant. ; ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The Court has considered United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), filed September 3, 2025, concerning Defendant’s request for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3) or transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 U.S.C. § 1406. (See R&R, Dkt. No. 47.) A party who wishes to object to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file specific written objections within 14 days. FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Plaintiff, through counsel, was electronically served with a copy of the R&R on September 3, 2025, and timely filed objections on September 17, 2025 (see Dkt. No. 49). When a party objects to an R&R, the Court must make a de novo determination as to “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fep. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see United States. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). Objections must be specific; frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the district court. Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. U.S. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (Sth Cir. 1996)). Any portions of the

Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendations that were not objected to are reviewed for clear error. Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. Upon review, the Court finds that Judge Gilliland correctly applied the law to the facts in this case and, thus, that Plaintiffs objections to the R&R should be and hereby are OVERRULED. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s R&R (Dkt. No. 47) and, for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED, and this case is TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of Michigan. Itis so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 7 day of September 2025.

ORLANDO L. GARCIA United States District Judge

□□

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

S3G Technology LLC v. Domino's Pizza LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s3g-technology-llc-v-dominos-pizza-llc-mied-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack