Pinnacle Holding Company, LLC et al v. Allen et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
PINNACLE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,
and PINNACLE EMPLOYEE SERVICES,
LLC,
Plaintiffs,
-v- 	5:24-CV-239 (AJB/CBF)
MICHAEL ALLEN and PINNACLE
EMPLOYEE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:
ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
On February 16, 2024, plaintiffs Pinnacle Holding Company, LLC and Pinnacle Employee
Services, LLC (“plaintiffs”) filed this trademark infringement action against defendants Michael
Allen and Pinnacle Employee Services, Inc. (“defendants”). Dkt. No. 1. The action was initially
assigned to U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby, who adjudicated certain preliminary matters in
this litigation, see, e.g., Dkt. No. 2, 13, 20, before approving a stipulation that permitted plaintiffs
to amend their complaint, Dkt. No. 25. After plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 27,
defendants moved to dismiss the operative pleading for, inter alia, a lack of personal jurisdiction
in this forum. Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiffs opposed dismissal, but in the alternative sought permission
to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Dkt. No. 34.
On September 2, 2025, after the case was reassigned from Judge Suddaby, Dkt. No. 41,
this Court granted in part plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery and denied defendants’
remaining arguments without prejudice to renew if needed. Dkt. No. 43. The matter was referred
Case 5:24-cv-00239-AJB-CBF Document 60 Filed 06/10/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
to the assigned magistrate judge, who worked patiently to resolve certain discovery disputes, see,
e.g., Dkt. No. 49, and to adjudicate plaintiffs’ motion for leave to further amend, Dkt. No. 50,
which defendants opposed, Dkt. No. 54.
On May 19, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Carla B. Freedman advised by Report & Recom-
mendation (“R&R”) that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint be denied
and that defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction be granted. Dkt. No. 59.
Neither party has lodged objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See
Dkt. No. 59. Upon review for clear error, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See FED. R.
C IV. P. 72(b).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 59) is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 50) is DE-
NIED;
3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint for lack of personal juris-
diction (Dkt. No. 29) is GRANTED;
4. Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint (Dkt. No. 27) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motions, enter a judgment ac-
cordingly, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 10, 2026
Utica, New York.
Case 5:24-cv-00239-AJB-CBF Document 60 Filed 06/10/26 Page 2 of 2