MOYE v. DEPP et al
Filing
19
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS - granting #18 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ASHLEY RUTH MOYÉ,
PLAINTIFF
v.
JOHN CHRISTOPHER DEPP, II,
ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 2:13-CV-26-DBH
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
The defendants Depp’s and Mandel’s motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction is GRANTED.
The plaintiff has filed no response to the
motion and therefore is deemed to have waived objection. See Local Rule 7(b).
Moreover, in light of the Complaint’s failure to allege any basis for this court’s
personal jurisdiction over the defendant, the Magistrate Judge earlier ordered
the plaintiff to state the basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
Order to Supplement, Jan. 28, 2013 (ECF No. 4). The plaintiff’s response to
that Order showed no basis for jurisdiction. Moyé Decl. (ECF No. 8).
Finally, this appears to be another in a series of frivolous lawsuits
by this plaintiff against these defendants or other celebrities.
Accordingly, I
place Ashley Ruth Moyé on NOTICE that filing restrictions “may be in the
offing.”
Cok v. Family Court of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993).
This
represents the “cautionary order” of which Cok speaks. Id. Groundless and
inappropriate filings will not be tolerated.
SO ORDERED.
DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
/S/D. BROCK HORNBY
D. BROCK HORNBY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
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?