GILL et al v. HARTSHORN et al

Filing 250

ORDER construing 229 Motion to Bifurcate as Motion to Sever and granting; finding as moot 239 Motion to Bifurcate. Ordered by U.S. District Judge CLAY D LAND on 07/28/2014. (CGC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
KAREN GILL, et al.,

*

Plaintiffs,

*

vs.

*

KEVIN HARTSHORN, et al.,

*

Defendants.

CASE NO. 4:12-CV-77 (CDL)

*
O R D E R

After extensive litigation, this action has been narrowed
to two main issues: (1) whether Elm Leasing and/or Loren Gill
owe money to certain single asset property trusts that benefit
the Gill Family Cornerstone Trust (or vice versa) (“Elm Leasing
Claims”), and (2) whether Kevin Hartshorn, Dan Van Gasken, and
entities

they

control

mismanaged

the

Gill

Family

Cornerstone

Trust and certain single asset property trusts that benefit it
(“Trust Mismanagement Claims”).

Presently pending before the

Court is the Motion to Bifurcate filed by Elm Leasing, LLC,
Loren Gill, Michael Gill, Steve Thomas, and Wallace Whitten (ECF
No. 229).

All the parties to this action agree that the Court

should hold separate trials of the Elm Leasing Claims and the
Trust Mismanagement Claims.
For the reasons set forth at the pretrial conference on
July 28, 2014, the Court construes the Motion to Bifurcate as a

Motion to Sever under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21.
Motion to Sever is granted.

The

The Court will try the Elm Leasing

Claims during its September trial term beginning September 2,
2014.
Over the course of the litigation, the parties’ interests
have shifted, so the Court, after consultation with counsel,
realigns the parties for the Elm Leasing Claims as follows:
Plaintiffs: Lauren Gill, Kaitlyn Gill, and Dan Van Gasken
(in his capacity as trustee for various single property asset
trusts).
Defendants/Counterclaimants

and

Third

Party

Claimants:

Loren Gill and Elm Leasing, LLC.
Counterclaim Defendant:

Dan Van Gasken.

Third Party Defendants: Kevin Hartshorn, Eastern Property
Development,
Holding

LLC,

Trust,

EPD

South
2

East

Enterprise
Trust,

Holding

Group,
Holding

SEE

LLC,

EPD

Trust,

1

The

Church of Compassionate Service, and The Compassionate Order of
Service of The Church of Compassionate Service.
These Elm Leasing Claims will now proceed as a discrete
action separate from the Trust Mismanagement Claims and will
result

in

a

separate

and

independent

final

judgment.

See

Hofmann v. De Marchena Kaluche & Asociados, 642 F.3d 995, 998
(11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

Severance also requires the

Court to reassess federal jurisdiction because “a severed action

2

must

have

an

independent

jurisdictional

basis.”

Honeywell

Int’l, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 415 F.3d 429, 431 (5th
Cir. 2005).

The Elm Leasing Claims are asserted in part as

federal RICO claims, and therefore, the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over that action.

The Trust Mismanagement Claims,

however, do not arise under the laws of the United States, and
it appears that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 are not met
for those claims.

Thus, no independent jurisdictional basis

exists for the Trust Mismanagement Claims.

Accordingly, those

claims, which consist of all of the remaining claims in this
action other than the Elm Leasing Claims that have been severed,
are

dismissed

jurisdiction.

without

prejudice

for

lack

of

subject

matter

And the present action will consist only of the

Elm Leasing Claims.1

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 28th day of July, 2014.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The additional Motion to Bifurcate (ECF No. 239), which requests
further bifurcation of the Trust Mismanagement Claims, is now moot.

3