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)

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..