Lim v. Nojiri et al

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 51 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed by Chang Lim, and Denying as Moot 49 MOTION for Order for a Delay of the Lawsuit filed by Chang Lim; Dismissing defendant Terumo Corporation without prejudice for lack of diversity subject matter jurisdiction and Closing Case. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (LWag)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHANG LIM,
Plaintiff Pro Se,
Case No. 10-cv-14080
v.
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
CHISATO NOJIRI AND TERUMO
AMERICAS HOLDINGS, INC.,
KEITH PROCTOR, BILL PINON AND
TERUMO HEART, INC.,
GAEL TISACK AND TERUMO
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS,
MARK SUTTER, STEVEN SMITH and
TERUMO CORPORATION,
Defendants.
____________________________________/
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DELAY LAWSUIT
(DKT. NO. 49) AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (DKT. NO. 51)
Before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Delay Lawsuit (Dkt. No. 49)1 and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave of Court to File His Second Amended Complaint Without Hearing (Dkt. No. 51).
Defendants have filed responses (Dkt. Nos. 53 and 54) and Plaintiff has filed a reply (Dkt. No. 55).
The Court concludes, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L. R. 7.1, that oral argument would not assist in
resolution of these motions. The Court, having dismissed without prejudice all Defendants in this

1

The Court notes that on June 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw his motion for delay
of lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 56.) This Order, denying Plaintiff’s motion for delay as moot, also grants
Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw the motion, which has now been terminated on the Court’s docket.
1

matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction2 (Dkt. Nos. 43 and 52), hereby DENIES both motions
(Dkt. Nos. 49, 51) as moot.
This Order closes this case.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 1, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record and/or pro
se parties on this date, July 1, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Lisa Wagner for Denise Goodine
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]

2

See Pratt v. Ventas, Inc., 365 F.3d 514, 521, 522-23 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting that a party may not
relitigate the issue of subject matter jurisdiction once decided but that a dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction does not operate as an adjudication on the merits and does not bar a subsequent
suit in an appropriate venue).
3

Plaintiff never served named Defendant Terumo Corporation, which is also dismissed without
prejudice. Even if this Defendant had been properly served, it would have been entitled to dismissal
without prejudice in this action on the same grounds of lack of diversity subject matter jurisdiction
asserted by the other Defendants.
2