GAST et al v. DRAGON ESP, LTD. et al

Filing 49

ENTRY denying MODERN GROUP GP-SUB, INC.S AND W. CRENSHAWMANAGEMENT, LLCS 15 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (see Entry). Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 3/30/2010. (PG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION GREG GAST and MARY BETH GAST, Plaintiffs, ) ) ) vs. ) ) DRAGON ESP, LTD., CRENSHAW REAL ) PROPERTIES, IV, LTD., THE FULTON ) COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION, THE ) MODERN GROUP GP-SUB, INC., and W. ) CRENSHAW MANAGEMENT, LLC, ) Defendants. )

1:09-cv-0465-RLY-JMS

ENTRY ON THE MODERN GROUP GP-SUB, INC.'S AND W. CRENSHAW MANAGEMENT, LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Defendants, The Modern Group GP-SUB, Inc. ("Modern") and W. Crenshaw Management LLC ("Crenshaw Management") (collectively "Defendants"), move to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES the motion. I. Background Dragon ESP, Ltd.("Dragon") and Crenshaw Real Properties IV, LTD. are Texas limited partnerships. Dragon owns a heavy manufacturing facility (the "Dragon Facility") in Fulton County, Indiana, and Crenshaw Real Properties owns the real estate upon which the Dragon Facility sits. (Complaint ¶¶ 7-8). The thrust of Plaintiffs'
1

Complaint is that the Dragon and Crenshaw Real Properties operate the Dragon Facility in a manner that, inter alia, violates the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and various state laws. Modern is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas and has its principal place of business in Texas. (Affidavit of Casey Crenshaw in Support of Modern Group GP-SUB, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ("Modern Aff."), ¶ 3). Crenshaw Management is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Texas, with its principal place of business in Texas. (Affidavit of Casey Crenshaw in Support of W. Crenshaw Management, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ("Crenshaw Management Aff."), ¶ 3). Modern is the sole general partner of Dragon, and its principal place of business is located in Texas. (Plaintiffs' Ex. A). Crenshaw Management is the sole general partner of Crenshaw Real Properties, and its principal place of business is located in Texas. (Plaintiffs' Ex. B). Modern owns a 1% interest in Dragon, and Crenshaw Management owns a 4% interest in Crenshaw Real Properties. (Modern Aff. ¶ 3; Crenshaw Management Aff. ¶ 3). II. Discussion Defendants move to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction. They claim that they have no minimum contacts with the State of Indiana and that they therefore should not be expected to be haled into court here. The court disagrees. Courts in this district have found that personal jurisdiction over a partnership is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the general partners. See Que Sera
2

Promotions v. Poughkeepsie Ford, Inc., 2005 WL 2896703, at *4 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 2, 2005); Wolfson v. S & S Secs., 756 F.Supp. 374, 377 (N.D. Ill. 1991); Felicia, Ltd. v. Gulf A. Barge, Ltd., 555 F.Supp. 801, 805-06 (N.D. Ill. 1983). The Texas Code governing limited partnerships supports this proposition. Under the express provisions of Texas Code Section 153.152, a limited partner who is a general partner is treated as a general partner. See TEX. CODE § 153.153. A general partner in a limited partnership is treated as a partner in a partnership and subject to personal liability to the partnership creditors. See TEX. CODE § 153.152(b). Thus, under the Texas Code, which governs Modern and Crenshaw Management as general partners of Texas limited partnerships, Modern and Crenshaw Management can be held liable for the partnership's actions. Therefore, Modern and Crenshaw Management should expect to be haled into court in any state, including Indiana, in which Dragon and Crenshaw Real Property are subject to jurisdiction. Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED. III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES Modern Group GP-SUB, Inc.'s and W. Crenshaw Management, LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Docket # 15). SO ORDERED this 30th day of March 2010. RICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE UnRICHARD L. YOUNG, CHIEF JUDGE ited States District Court SoUnited States District Court uthern District of Indiana
Southern District of Indiana 3 __________________________________

Electronic Copes to: P. Adam Davis DAVIS & SARBINOFF LLP [e-mail] James M. Hinshaw BINGHAM MCHALE LLP [e-mail] Kenneth J. Munson BINGHAM MCHALE LLP [e-mail] Rafael A. Sanchez BINGHAM MCHALE LLP [e-mail]

4