FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. AMOS et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 26 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 02/08/2017. (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION, as Receiver for
GulfSouth Private Bank,
Plaintiff,
vs.

*
*
*
*

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-284 (CDL)

WILLIAM L. AMOS, JENNIFER C.
*
AMOS, and WLA INVESTMENTS INC.,
*
Defendants.
*
O R D E R
Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Company (“FDIC-R”), as
receiver for GulfSouth Private Bank, seeks “a declaration that
the

mortgage

encumbering

certain

real

property

and

held

by

[Defendant] WLA Investments Inc.” is Defendant William L. Amos’s
property.
31.

Pl.’s Resp. to Def. WLA’s Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF No.

FDIC-R “seeks to attach and levy on the mortgage to help

satisfy the over $3.5 million owed by Amos to” FDIC-R.

Id.

WLA Investments LLC, which is not named as a party in this
action, filed a motion to dismiss any claims against it for lack
of personal jurisdiction.

FDIC-R did not assert any claims

against WLA Investments LLC, although FDIC-R does allege that
WLA Investments LLC is also known as WLA Investments Inc.
Investments Inc. is a Defendant in this case.

WLA

WLA Investments

LLC argues that to the extent that FDIC-R attempts to assert any

claims against it, those claims should be dismissed for lack of
personal

jurisdiction.

Investments

LLC

and

FDIC-R
WLA

contends

Investments

that

Inc.

both

waived

WLA

personal

jurisdiction by agreeing to a preliminary injunction.1
A

defendant

may

waive

personal

jurisdiction.

Leroy

v.

Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180 (1979), superseded by
statute on other grounds as stated in Newton v. Thomason, 22
F.3d 1455, 1464 n.8 (9th Cir. 1994).
LLC

and

WLA

Investments

injunction in this action.
1 & n.1, ECF No. 17.

Inc.

Here, Both WLA Investments

consented

to

a

preliminary

Consent Order Granting Prelim. Inj.

Under the preliminary injunction, WLA

Investments LLC and WLA Investments Inc. agreed to be enjoined
from taking several actions with regard to certain real property
in Biloxi, Mississippi. Id. at 5-6.

Neither WLA Investments LLC

nor WLA Investments Inc. objected to jurisdiction in this Court
or reserved the right to contest the Court’s jurisdiction.

When

WLA Investments LLC and WLA Investments Inc. consented to the
injunction, they “voluntarily acknowledged and acquiesced to the
[Court’s] authority to control their conduct.”

Aeration Sols.,

Inc. v. Dickman, 85 F. App’x 772, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

“[F]ew

actions [can] more clearly signal an acceptance of a court’s
jurisdiction than signing a stipulated injunction order.
1

Such

WLA Investments Inc. does not challenge personal jurisdiction. FDICR alleges that WLA Investments Inc. is not incorporated under the laws
of any state and is solely owned by William Amos, a Georgia citizen.
Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5, 14, ECF No. 23.

2

an action, without reservation, expressly indicates a party’s
willingness to submit itself to the equitable powers of the
court.”

Id. at 775.

For these reasons, the Court finds that if

FDIC-R has asserted any claims against WLA Investments LLC, the
Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over WLA Investments
LLC.2
CONCLUSION
For

the

reasons

set

forth

above,

WLA

Investments

LLC’s

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 8th day of February, 2017.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2

Even if WLA Investments LLC had not waived personal jurisdiction, the
Court would likely still have personal jurisdiction over WLA
Investments LLC because its principal place of business is in Georgia
and the mortgage assignment and mortgage subordination at issue in
this action were both executed in Georgia. Def. WLA’s Mot. to Dismiss
Ex. A, Articles of Organization, ECF No. 26 at 5-6; Am. Compl. Ex. M,
Assignment of Mortgage, ECF No. 23-13; Am. Compl. Ex. N, Subordination
Agreement, ECF No. 23-14. And, WLA Investments LLC did not point to
any evidence in support of its argument that it does not transact
business in Georgia.

3