AMTEC Corporation v. US Centrifuge Systems LLC et al

Filing 54

ORDER Because of this court's prior ruling that federal subject matter jurisdiction lies in this case, the court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate judges recommendation and DENIES the motions to dismiss that specifically challenged subject matte r jurisdiction; i.e., the motions filed by Key Environmental Systmes, Inc. (doc. 4); by Schott Behrens (doc. 6); by Damon Turk (doc. 7); Mike Evans (doc. 8); and by Robert Behrens (doc. 21); HOWEVER for reasons noted within, the court REJECTS the recommendation as to motion (doc. 14). Instead, the court returns this motion to the magistrate judge for initial consideration. Signed by Judge Karon O Bowdre on 9/3/13. (SAC )

FILED
2013 Sep-03 PM 02:20
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
AMTEC CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
US CENTRIFUGE SYSTEMS LLC, et
al.,

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

CIVIL ACTION NO.:
5:12-cv-1874-JHE

Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the court as the result of a report and recommendation entered by
the magistrate judge as a docket entry on June 6, 2013. In it, he recommends that the motions to
dismiss filed by the following defendants be denied: motion by Key Environmental Systmes, Inc.
(doc. 4); motion by Schott Behrens (doc. 6); motion by Damon Turk (doc. 7); motion by Mike Evans
(doc. 8); motion by Centriquip, Ltd. and Ashbrook Simon-Hartley, Ltd. (doc. 14); and motion by
Robert Behrens (doc. 21). The only ground stated for the recommendation is this court’s “finding
that there is subject matter jurisdiction.”1 The only defendants to file objections to that
recommendation are Centriquip, Ltd. and Ashbrook Simon-Hartley, Ltd. (doc. 35); these defendants
correctly assert that the basis for their motion to dismiss is lack of personal—not subject
matter—jurisdiction, and that the magistrate judge failed to address the important issue of personal
jurisdiction over them.
Because of this court’s prior ruling that federal subject matter jurisdiction lies in this case,
the court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s recommendation and DENIES the motions

1

When the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on the plaintiff’s motion to
remand was referred to the undersigned judge, after a hearing, I found that this court has subject
matter jurisdiction and denied the motion. (Doc. 34).

to dismiss that specifically challenged subject matter jurisdiction; i.e., the motions filed by Key
Environmental Systmes, Inc. (doc. 4); by Schott Behrens (doc. 6); by Damon Turk (doc. 7); Mike
Evans (doc. 8); and by Robert Behrens (doc. 21).
However, because defendants Centriquip, Ltd. and Ashbrook Simon-Hartley, Ltd. did not
challenge subject matter jurisdiction, neither this court’s ruling nor the magistrate judge’s
recommendation applies. The court specifically finds that the magistrate judge never examined or
addressed the critical issues at the heart of these defendants’ challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over
them personally. Further, the magistrate judge never considered the plaintiff’s request that it be given
leave to conduct discovery on the limited question of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 16). Because the
magistrate judge never addressed these issues and erroneously listed the defendants’ motion to
dismiss along with the motions attacking subject matter jurisdiction, the court REJECTS the
recommendation as to their motion (doc. 14). Instead, the court returns this motion to the magistrate
judge for initial consideration.
DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of September, 2013.

____________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE