Advanced Career Technologies, Inc. v. John Does 1-10
Filing
48
ORDER denying 44 Defendant Daniel Drasin's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment. By Judge William J. Martinez on 3/23/2015.(alowe)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 13-cv-0304-WJM-KLM
ADVANCED CAREER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DOES 1-10, and
DANIEL DRASIN,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT DANIEL DRASIN’S
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
On February 5, 2013, Plaintiff initiated this action against the above-named
Defendants, alleging violations of the Lanham Act, trade libel, and violations of the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act. (ECF No. 1.) On January 23, 2015, the Court
dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Daniel Drasin (“Defendant”) without
prejudice due to lack of personal jurisdiction. (ECF No. 41.) This matter is now before
the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (“Motion”). (ECF No. 44.)
In support of his Motion, Defendant cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, but points
to no particular provision of that rule suggesting he is entitled to the entry of final
judgment in the circumstances of this case. (See id.)
The “established rule [is] that dismissals for lack of personal jurisdiction are
without prejudice.” Arocho v. Lappin, 461 F. App’x 714, 719 (10th Cir. 2012)
(unpublished) (citing Hollander v. Sandoz Pharm. Corp., 289 F.3d 1193, 1216 (10th Cir.
2002)). “Absent the power to proceed to an adjudication, a court must dismiss without
prejudice because it cannot enter a judgment on the merits.” Id. (emphasis in original).
However, “[a]lthough a dismissal without prejudice is usually not a final decision, where
the dismissal finally disposes of the case so that it is not subject to further proceedings
in federal court, the dismissal is final and appealable.” Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc.,
273 F.3d 1271, 1275 (10th Cir. 2001). T he key inquiry is whether the plaintiff has
effectively been excluded from federal court as a result of the court’s dismissal. Id.
(citation omitted).
That is not the case here. In its Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,
the Court explicitly held that the claims against Defendant were dismissed without
prejudice due to lack of personal jurisdiction. (ECF No. 41 at 12.) The effect of the
Court’s Order was to allow Plaintiff to re-file its case in a proper forum, and therefore
the dismissal did not preclude further federal court litigation of this matter by Plaintiff.
As such, the Court finds that Defendant is not entitled to an entry of final judgment in
this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. As a consequence,
Defendant’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (ECF No. 44) is DENIED.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
2
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?