of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Conversion; (4) Intentional and/or Fraudulent Nondisclosure; (5) Unjust Enrichment; and (6) Accounting. In lieu of an Answer, the Defendants have filed multiple Motions to Dismiss. The Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that: (1) the Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a viable partnership claim against the Defendants; (2) in the alternative, the present lawsuit is covered by a private arbitration agreement; and (3) in the alternative, the Southern District of Ohio is an improper venue for the present action. II. Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue The Court first addresses the Defendants’ claim that venue in the Southern District of Ohio is improper in this case. See Arrowsmith v. United Press Int’l, 320 F.2d 219, 221 (2nd Cir.1963) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). The Defendants maintain that the Southern
recognizing that district court may dismiss action despite improper venue where complaint patently failed to state viable claim holding that the failure to obtain a ruling on a motion for new trial waives the issues raised for appellate review holding that erroneously admitted evidence may be considered when ruling on a motion to dismiss holding that a motion to dismiss based on a forumselection clause should be treated as a rule 12b3 motion to dismiss for improper venue recognizing that district courts should resolve issues related to jurisdiction or venue prior to ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim