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)

Download PDF
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 (313) 234-5522 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

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?