Smith et al v. Prosser et al
Filing
150
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Defendants' Motion for Corrective Order (Doc. No. 121 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: 1. Defendants may not proceed with their counterclaims against Lindsey; and 2. The Court's October 2, 2013 (Doc. No. 76 ) Order shall be amended to read as follows:Based upon the Stipulation for Dismissal Without Prejudice Plaintiff Christopher Lindsey filed by the parties on October 1, 2013 (Doc. No. 72 ),IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and on the merits, without costs or disbursements to any party, including Defendants' counterclaims against Christopher Lindsey. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 7/18/2014. (BJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tramaine M. Smith and
LeJuan D. Young,
Civil No. 12-2695 (DWF/JSM)
Plaintiffs,
v.
MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER
John W. Prosser, individually; Prosser
Holdings LLC d/b/a A.C. Financial;
and Automotive Restyling Concepts
Inc., d/b/a Automotive Concepts,
Defendants.
Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq., Consumer Justice Center P.A., counsel for Plaintiffs.
William H. Henney, Esq., counsel for Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Corrective Order brought by
Defendants John W. Prosser, individually; Prosser Holdings LLC, d/b/a A.C. Financial;
and Automotive Restyling Concepts Inc., d/b/a Automotive Concepts (together,
“Defendants”). (Doc. No. 121.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants in part
and denies in part Defendants’ motion.
DISCUSSION
Defendants request that the Court enter an order correcting the Court’s Order
(Doc. No. 76) dismissing Plaintiff Christopher Lindsey (“Lindsey”). (See Doc. No. 123.)
Defendants contend that the parties agreed that Lindsey’s claims against Defendants
would be dismissed, but that Defendants did not intend that their counterclaims against
Lindsey be dismissed. (See id.) Defendants’ counterclaims against Lindsey relate to
alleged default with respect to vehicle loan agreements with Defendants. (See Doc.
No. 48 ¶¶ 5, 6 (Counterclaims).) The parties’ stipulation and, as a result, the Court’s
Order, did not explicitly address counterclaims. (Doc. Nos. 72, 76.)
For this motion, Defendants argue that because their counterclaims against
Lindsey are compulsory, the Court maintains jurisdiction. Plaintiffs disagree that this
Court has jurisdiction and request that the Court dismiss the counterclaims without
prejudice and allow Defendants to proceed in State Court.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a), which relates to compulsory
counterclaims, a pleader “must state as a counterclaim any claim that—at the time of its
service—the pleader has against an opposing party if the claim . . . arises out of the
transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party’s claim.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 13(a). At the time of service, Defendants’ counterclaims with respect to
Lindsey were compulsory counterclaims “arising out of” the same “transaction or
occurrence” at issue in the Complaint and were properly before this Court.
However, at this time, because Plaintiff Lindsey has been dismissed, and therefore
all claims over which this Court originally had jurisdiction have been dismissed, the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction with respect to Defendants’
counterclaims against Lindsey. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (“The district courts may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim if . . . the district court has
2
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); see also Regions Bank v.
J.R. Oil Co., LLC, 387 F.3d 721, 732 (8th Cir. 2004) (affirming the district court’s
decision to decline the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s
remaining state law claims once federal RICO claims had been dismissed).
Thus, Defendants’ motion is denied to the extent they seek to proceed with their
counterclaims against Lindsey, and the Court dismisses the counterclaims against
Lindsey without prejudice.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Corrective Order (Doc. No. [121]) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.
Defendants may not proceed with their counterclaims against Lindsey; and
2.
The Court’s October 2, 2013 (Doc. No. [76]) Order shall be amended to
read as follows:
Based upon the Stipulation for Dismissal Without Prejudice Plaintiff Christopher
Lindsey filed by the parties on October 1, 2013 (Doc. No. [72]),
IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and
on the merits, without costs or disbursements to any party, including Defendants’
counterclaims against Christopher Lindsey.
Dated: July 18, 2014
s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge
3
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?