Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Who Subscribed to Policy No. PGIARK00201 04 v. Aminokit Laboratories, Inc. et al

Filing 35

ORDER Denying 20 the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case will proceed on the Amended Complaint, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 4/27/16.(ktera)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch Civil Action No. 16-cv-00412-RPM CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S LONDON WHO SUBSCRIBED TO POLICY NO. PG1ARK00201-04, Plaintiffs, v. AMINOKIT LABORATORIES, INC., a Colorado Corporation; TAMEA RAE SISCO, a natural person; JONATHAN LEE, MD, a natural person; LEO RUNNELS, a natural person; DENNIS THOMPSON, DC, a natural person; and NCMIC INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation; Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) _____________________________________________________________________ On March 25, 2016, the defendants Aminokit Laboratories, Inc.; Tamea Rae Sisco and Leo Runnels filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. (Doc. 20) addressed to the Complaint (Doc. 1). Other defendants joined that motion (Docs. 21 and 22). The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 1, 2016, adequately alleging diversity jurisdiction (Doc. 23) and a response to the Rule12(b)(1) motion. (Doc. 33). It is now ORDERED, that the defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are denied. The case will proceed on the Amended Complaint. DATED: April 27th, 2016 BY THE COURT: s/Richard P. Matsch __________________________ Richard P. Matsch, Senior Judge

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?