AJIN Industrial Co., Ltd. v. KRP, Inc.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that Defendant KRP, Inc.'s 12 Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is DENIED as further set out in the order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 1/29/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(dmn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
AJIN INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.,
KRP, INC., and HYUNG SAM LIM,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-286-WKW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Defendant KRP, Inc.’s (“KRP”) motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. (Doc. # 12); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6). Plaintiff AJIN
Industrial Co., Ltd. (“AJIN”), filed a response in opposition to the motion, and a
reply and sur-reply followed. (Docs. # 14, 15, 19.) After careful consideration of
the arguments of counsel, the relevant law, and the pleadings, the court finds that
the motion is due to be denied.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The parties do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue. Subject-matter
jurisdiction is in dispute, but, as set out in this opinion, is proper pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
challenges the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. McElmurray v. Consol. Gov’t of
Augusta-Richmond Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007). On a Rule
12(b)(1) facial attack, the court evaluates whether the complaint “sufficiently
allege[s] a basis of subject-matter jurisdiction,” employing standards similar to
those governing Rule 12(b)(6) review. Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733
F.3d 1323, 1335 (11th Cir. 2013).
When evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), the court must take the facts alleged in the complaint as true
and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Resnick v. AvMed,
Inc., 693 F.3d 1317, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 2012). Rule 12(b)(6) review also includes
consideration of any exhibits attached to the complaint. Thaeter v. Palm Beach
Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 449 F.3d 1342, 1352 (11th Cir. 2006). To survive Rule
12(b)(6) scrutiny, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “[F]acial plausibility” exists “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
This diversity action arises out of a sales and service contract between AJIN
and KRP. KRP contracted with AJIN to purchase a welding equipment inspection
system for $240,000. AJIN delivered the system in December 2012, oversaw its
installation in March 2013, and received a $50,000 payment in February 2014.
KRP made no more payments under the contract, however. As a result, AJIN
brought this lawsuit against KRP for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud,
and promissory fraud.
After AJIN perfected service on KRP, settlement negotiations commenced
and culminated in an agreement that required KRP to pay AJIN in full on a
monthly payment schedule, beginning on June 30, 2014, and ending on November
30, 2014 (“Settlement Agreement”).
KRP’s president, Hyung Sam Lim,
personally guaranteed the Settlement Agreement, but KRP failed to make the first
or second payment.
Consequently, on August 6, 2014, AJIN amended the
Complaint to add claims against Mr. Lim and KRP for breach of the Settlement
Agreement.1 KRP responded to the Amended Complaint with the pending Rule
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.2
AJIN properly filed its Amended Complaint as a matter of course pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B).
Mr. Lim has not filed an answer or response to the pleadings.
All of KRP’s arguments for Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal have
been considered. None has merit, and only a few warrant any discussion.
First, as to KRP’s invocation of Rule 12(b)(1), the Amended Complaint
predicates jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. It alleges that the parties are of
diverse citizenship: A foreign corporation versus a domestic corporation and an
Alabama citizen. (See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–3 (delineating with particularity the
citizenship of each party).) The Amended Complaint further avers that the amount
in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
KRP does not dispute the Amended Complaint’s allegations of citizenship
and jurisdictional amount. Rather, KRP focuses on AJIN USA, who is not a party
to this action, contending that “its name and location . . . suggests a domestic
corporation that would destroy . . . diversity.” (Doc. # 12, at 2.) The basis of this
argument is unclear.
The general rule is that diversity jurisdiction rests on the citizenship of the
named parties, and KRP presents no reason or authority why the citizenship of
AJIN USA, a non-party, is relevant for purposes of subject-matter jurisdiction. See
CCC Info. Servs., Inc. v. Am. Salvage Pool Ass’n, 230 F.3d 342, 346 (7th Cir.
2000) (“Ordinarily, we look only to the citizenship of the named parties . . . in
order to determine whether complete diversity exists.”). Accordingly, subject4
matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to § 1332, and KRP’s argument is
Second, KRP argues that the Amended Complaint is “premature” and “fails
to state a claim” because its filing preceded the date the final payment was due
under the Settlement Agreement and because AJIN “has received $50,000 from
KRP already.” (Doc. # 12, at 2.) However, these arguments do not address or
vitiate the Amended Complaint’s claims that KRP breached the original contract
by paying only $50,000 of the $240,000 purchase price and that KRP breached the
Settlement Agreement by failing to make the initially required monthly payments.
KRP offers no persuasive reason for finding that the Amended Complaint is
premature or fails scrutiny under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the Rule 12(b)(6)
arguments are unpersuasive.3
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Defendant KRP, Inc.’s
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and
under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim (Doc. # 12) is DENIED.
DONE this 29th day of January, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In its reply brief, KPR raises new arguments in support of its motion to dismiss. The
new arguments fail for substantially the same reasons set out by AJIN in its sur-reply.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?