[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-305022-105":53,"doc-detail-305022-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","km-processing-solutions-llc-v-bunting-magnetics-co-report-and-recommendation","KM Processing Solutions, LLC v. Bunting Magnetics Co. - Report and Recommendation","","A federal report and recommendation in a Southern District of Alabama case addresses the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint for improper venue. The matter reviews the factual and procedural history involving recycling and processing system companies and a magnetic components vendor. Key issues include product sales, an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement, the confidentiality agreement’s governing law selection, and whether Kansas venue terms and contract relationships require dismissal.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":51,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/km-processing-solutions-llc-v-bunting-magnetics-co-report-and-recommendation/305022/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/km-processing-solutions-llc-v-bunting-magnetics-co-report-and-recommendation/305022.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Olivia Brown","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-09-19",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":9},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What motion was before the court in this case?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The report addresses a motion filed by Bunting to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint for improper venue.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What do the parties dispute in connection with the confidentiality agreement?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The dispute includes Bunting’s alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement tied to how ERS’s design concept and related information were to be handled.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Which state’s substantive law was selected under the confidentiality agreement?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The report states that the parties selected the substantive law of the State of Alabama as governing the confidentiality agreement.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},305022,1789821103,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":50,"category_name":51,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":9,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":125,"read_time":140},16904993612988,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","Case 1:13-cv-00366-CG-N Document 23 Filed 11/05/13 Page 1 of 19  \nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA  \nSOUTHERN DIVISION  \nKM PROCESSING SOLUTIONS, LLC, )  \nE RECYCLING SYSTEMS, LLC, ))  \nPlaintiffs, )  \n)  \nv. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-00366-CG-N  \n)  \nBUNTING MAGNETICS CO., ))  \nDefendant. )  \nREPORT AND RECOMMENDATION  \nThis action is before the Court on a motion (doc. 14) filed by Bunting Magnetic Co. (“Bunting”), the defendant herein, to dismiss plaintiffs’Amended Complaint (doc. 8) for improper venue. The matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) . Upon consideration of the motion, plaintiffs ’response in opposition thereto (doc. 18), Bunting’s reply (doc. 19), and all other pertinent portions ofthe record, it is recommended that the motion be denied.  \nI.  Factual and Procedural Background  \nThe plaintiffs, KM Processing Solutions, LLC (“KMP”) and E Recycling Systems, LLC (“ERS”), are Alabama limited liability companies in the business of developing and supplying recycling and processing systems to various purchasers. ERS is a successor and/or assignee of Ecovery, LLC. KMP and ERS maintained offices in Loxley, Alabama during 2010 and 2011. (Doc. 18-1 at ¶ 2) .  \nDefendant Bunting Magnetics Co. (“Bunting”) is a Kansas corporation and vendor  \nCase 1:13-cv-00366-CG-N Document 23 Filed 11/05/13 Page 2 of 19  \ndealing with magnets and related component parts. This lawsuit concerns, in part, the sale of magnetic discs by Bunting to KMP and ERS. It also concerns Bunting’s alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement entered into by the parties.  \nBunting’s regional sales manager, Ken Oakley, made an initial sales call to Ecovery (ERS) by visiting James Cunningham, organizer and manager of ERS, in Loxley, Alabama, in September of 2010. (Doc. 18-1 at ¶¶ 3-4) . Following Mr. Oakley’s visit, Bunting’s vice-president of engineering, Don Suderman, visited Mr. Cunningham at ERS. (Id. at ¶ 4) . On December 21, 2010, Bunting sent ERS a price proposal quote for a component part (magnetic head pulley) . (Id., citing Doc. 14 at 8) . This proposal, which was unsigned by either party, states:  \n“TERMS: Under $40,000 . Net 30 days. $40,000 or more, 40% with order, 60% Net 30 days. With approved credit.  \n. . .  \nRefer to [www.buntingmagnetics.com](www.buntingmagnetics.com) for Terms and Conditions of Sale and Product Warranty.”  \n(Doc. 14 at 8) . The undersigned has searched Bunting’s website and found, under the subtitle “Terms and Conditions of Sale,” the following statement:  \nGOVERNING LAW/SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION  \nAny contract arising out of the making and acceptance of a Bunting offer or quote shall be deemed to have been made in the State of Kansas, and shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Kansas. The Buyer stipulates that any resultant agreement is substantially performable by the parties and that jurisdiction exists solely within the state of Kansas.  \n([www.buntingmagnetics.com](www.buntingmagnetics.com)). Bunting’s website also contains the following statement in its “Terms and Conditions of Sale”:  \nCase 1:13-cv-00366-CG-N Document 23 Filed 11/05/13 Page 3 of 19  \nENTIRE AGREEMENT  \nThe Buyer’s purchase order, upon acknowledgment by Bunting, Bunting’s Terms and Conditions of Sale, and the Bunting Product Warranty  \nrepresent the entire agreement between Bunting and the Buyer.(Id.) . See also, Doc. 14 at 16, 24.  \nHowever, Bunting has not disputed ERS’s contention that it planned to use Bunting’s magnetic head pulley for a design concept it was developing known as a “high gauss magnet” but would not divulge this design concept to Bunting until after a confidentiality agreement could be reached. (Doc. 18-1 at ¶ 5) . The parties’ contractual relationship was, therefore, predicated in part on this confidentiality agreement. Bunting and ERS entered into a “Confidentiality and Use Agreement”(the“Confidentiality Agreem","cbCaiciGkpouDYhK","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiciGkpouDYhK","pdf",296752,19,"English","# Factual and Procedural Background\n## Motion to Dismiss and Procedural Posture\n## Parties and Business Relationships\n## Confidentiality Agreement and Governing Law\n## Relevant Communications and Proposals","[{\"question\":\"What motion was before the court in this case?\",\"answer\":\"The report addresses a motion filed by Bunting to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint for improper venue.\"},{\"question\":\"What do the parties dispute in connection with the confidentiality agreement?\",\"answer\":\"The dispute includes Bunting’s alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement tied to how ERS’s design concept and related information were to be handled.\"},{\"question\":\"Which state’s substantive law was selected under the confidentiality agreement?\",\"answer\":\"The report states that the parties selected the substantive law of the State of Alabama as governing the confidentiality agreement.\"}]","KM Processing Solutions, LLC v. Bunting Magnetics Co. - Report and Recommendation | PDF",7]