Lovston v. Skechers USA Inc

Filing 30

ORDER remanding this case to the Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 7/12/2012. (dmn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION TERENA LOVSTON, an Arkansas resident on behalf of herself and all other Arkansas residents similarly situated v. PLAINTIFF No. 4:11-cv-460-DPM SKECHERS USA, INC. DEFENDANT ORDER The Court will follow its intended course of action and remand this case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As Skechers points out, there is good authority for ruling on a motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay based on the first-filed rule before answering the jurisdictional question. E.g., Gould v. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 990 F. Supp. 1354, 1362-63 (M.D. Ala. 1998). But this is a matter of discretion. There is, as Lovston indicates, equally good authority for taking on the jurisdictional issue first. E.g., Tomlinson v. Skechers USA, Inc., No. 5:11-cv-5042-JLH (W.D. Ark. 25 May 2011) (order granting Tomlinson's motion to remand), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 551 (7 Nov. 2011) (No. 11-287); Alvarez v. Limited Express, LLC, No. 07CV1051 lEG (NLS), 2007 WL 2317125 (S.D. Cal. 8 Aug. 2007). The Court concludes, all material things considered, that jurisdiction can and should be resolved first here. This federal Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on the binding stipulations. Skechers fought and lost this issue in the Tomlinson case. This case is therefore remanded to the Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas. So Ordered. D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge I d-. ~ -2- ;J..o IJ..

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?