Summary
finding that it had jurisdiction over an out-of-state borrower in a suit brought by a lender to recover on three promissory notes, in particular because the case involved "not a single contact nor a single contract" but three separate promissory notes, "executed at regular intervals" over the course of several years, all showing that they were made in the plaintiff's office in North Carolina, the payments were due at the plaintiff's office in North Carolina, they were delivered, and the funds advanced, in North Carolina, and they contained a North Carolina choice-of-law provision
Summary of this case from Elcan v. FP Assocs.Opinion
1:03CV676
April 2, 2004
ORDER
On January 23, 2004, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge was filed and served on the parties in this action and a copy was given to the court.
Within the time limitation set forth in the statute, neither side objected to the Recommendation. The court therefore adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and For Improper Venue [Pleading no. #4] be DENIED.