PRICASPIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION et al v. MARTUCCI et al
Filing
370
OPINION and ORDER denying Sterben's 362 Motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 2/18/2016. (nr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
PRICASPIAN DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WILLIAM C. MARTUCCI et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 11-1459 (SRC)
OPINION & ORDER
CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before this Court on the motion for judgment on the pleadings by
Defendant Anthony Sterbens. Sterbens’ motion contends that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this case because the claims under federal law have been dismissed, and the
Complaint does not properly allege diversity jurisdiction.
Sterbens is incorrect. In the Opinion filed by this Court on January 9, 2014, this Court
granted the cross-motion for summary judgment of Defendants Richard Schaefer, Joseph
Schaefer, and Anthony Sterbens, and Ordered that the RICO claims, Counts Seven and Eight, be
dismissed as to those Defendants only. The Court expressly noted that Defendant William
Martucci had not moved to dismiss these counts. (Op. of 1/9/14 at 10.) The Complaint asserts
Counts Seven and Eight against many more Defendants than Richard Schaefer, Joseph Schaefer,
and Anthony Sterbens. As a result, the RICO claims against Martucci and others are still
pending, and provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction over this case. Sterbens has not
argued that this Court lacks supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a). The motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will be denied.
For these reasons,
IT IS on this 18th day of February, 2016
ORDERED that Sterbens’ motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 362) is DENIED.
/s Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER
United States District Judge
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?