Chesterton Capital LLC v. Holley et al

Filing 330

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered.The Court ADOPTS the Recommendation and Report to the extent that that it concludes that the Court does not have general personal jurisdiction over Cicero.Chesterton shall by no later than Februa ry 26, 2020, file a supplemental status report. By March 11, 2020, Cicero shall respond to Chesterton's filing. If Defendants Loudon and Holly wish to respond to Chesterton's filing, they must do so by no later than March 11, 2020 (Montes, Mariliz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CHESTERTON CAPITAL LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEGACY POINT CAPITAL LLC,
BYRON L. HOLLEY and JOHN C.
LOUDON
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 16-10848-LTS

ORDER
February 19, 2020
SOROKIN, J.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Chesterton Capital LLC’s (“Chesterton”) Objection
to the Report and Recommendation Re: Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonparty Renata Cicero
issued by Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler, Doc. No. 328. Chesterton does not object to the
Report and Recommendation’s principal conclusion that this Court does not have general
personal jurisdiction over nonparty Renata Cicero. Doc. No. 329 at 1-2. Rather, Chesterton
argues that this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Cicero, id. at 4-8, and that “the
Court has the inherent power to police its own dockets and to exercise jurisdiction over
nonparties in doing so,” id. at 10 n.4.
Before the Court addresses these arguments, Chesterton shall, by no later than February
26, 2020, file a supplemental status report clarifying: (1) the status of its motion for contempt
and sanctions as to Defendant Loudon, Doc. No. 279; (2) whether the relief it currently seeks
against Cicero differs in any respect from the requests detailed in its motion for contempt and

sanctions, id. at 14 ⁋⁋ 1-4; and (3) whether it is pressing the theory that there is an agency
relationship between Cicero and Loudon or that Cicero acted in “active concert or participation”
with Loudon, G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Webster Dictionary Co., 639 F.2d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 1980).
If pressed, any factual evidence cited in support of these theories shall be supported by
“[a]ffidavits and other documents setting forth or evidencing [those] facts[.]” Local Rule 7.1.
By no later than March 11, 2020, Cicero shall respond to Chesterton’s filing, addressing
any theories raised by Chesterton as to the relationship between Cicero and Loudon, as well as
Chesterton’s argument that the Court has specific personal jurisdiction or inherent authority to
adjudicate sanctions arising from Cicero’s motions to quash. If Defendants Loudon and Holly
wish to respond to Chesterton’s filing, they must do so by no later than March 11, 2020.
Finally, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation and Report to the extent that that it
concludes that the Court does not have general personal jurisdiction over Cicero.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

2