Church of God, Inc. v. Cornell et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER; For reasons set forth, sustaining 6 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; sustaining 9 Motion to Substitute Party; denying 9 Motion to Remand. Parties shall meet and submit a litigation plan. Signed by Chief Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 9/5/08. cc:counsel (SJS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:08CV-202-H CHURCH OF GOD, INC., d/b/a BLOOMFIELD CHURCH OF GOD OF PROPHECY V. ROY V. CORNELL, et al. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff has moved to substitute Bloomfield Church of God, by and through its trustees, as the proper and only plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff has also moved to remand to state court due to the absence of diversity jurisdiction. Defendants are each Kentucky residents. The records of the Kentucky Secretary of State indicate that "The Church of God, Inc." is a Tennessee corporation and that one of its assumed names is the "Bloomfield Church of God." The Secretary of State also lists the Bloomfield Church of God as an inactive Tennessee corporation. While Plaintiff says that the Bloomfield Church of God "is its own entity with its own trustees," the official state records do not seem to reflect a Kentucky corporation by that name. All parties have addressed these issues and Plaintiff has not cited sufficient facts or law which would allow this Court to conclude that the named parties lack diversity. Being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of John Wooldridge to withdraw as counsel DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF is SUSTAINED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to substitute parties is SUSTAINED and Bloomfield Church of God is deemed the Plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet and submit a litigation plan. September 5, 2008 cc: Counsel of Record Roy V. and Shirley A. Cornell, Defendants

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?