G-2000, Incorporated v. Chelten et al

Filing 53

ORDER granting 46 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION G2000, INC, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD E.CHELTEN, LINDA J. CHELTEN, JEFFREY A. EGAN, LIBERATOR VENTURES, L.L.C, and ANTHONY R. GARZONY, Defendants. Case No. 5:08cv11485 Honorable John Corbett O'Meara ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on April 7, 2008 (Docket No. 1) and its First Amended Complaint was filed on December 30, 2008 (Docket No. 25). The jurisdiction of this Court was premised on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). This matter was before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 18) and on Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Docket No. 46). Oral arguments on those motions were conducted on May 28, 2009 and the Court rules as follows: Plaintiff (a citizen of Ohio) amended its complaint on December 30, 2008 and included Defendant Anthony R. Garzony who was also a citizen of Ohio. The Court finds that complete diversity of citizenship was destroyed upon the filing of the First Amended Complaint. The Court also finds that Defendant Anthony R. Garzony is a necessary party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 but whose joinder destroys diversity jurisdiction. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore moot. Date: May 29, 2009 s/John Corbett O'Meara United States District Judge I hereby certify that a copy of this order was served upon counsel of record on this date May 29, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. William Barkholz Case Manager

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?