Ash v. Charlotte School of Law, LLC et al

Filing 20

ORDER Denying 8 Motion to Remand. Defendant Infilaw Holding, LLC is Dismissed from this case. This case shall be consolidated with the other related cases above for purposes of discovery. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 11/14/2017. (jaw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:17CV39
LEAH ASH,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
Vs.
)
)
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, )
INFILAW, INC., INFILAW HOLDING,
)
LLC, and DOES 1 – 20,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. This matter has
been fully briefed, however, on June 22, 2017, the Court entered an Order holding this motion in
abeyance until such time as the Court ruled upon a motion by Infilaw Holding, LLC (“Infilaw
Holding”) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in a related case, Krebs v. Charlotte School
of Law, et al., 3:17CV190-GCM. After a period of discovery on the issue of personal
jurisdiction and supplemental briefing, the Court held oral argument on Infilaw Holding’s
Motion to Dismiss in the Krebs case and granted the motion, dismissing Infilaw Holding from
the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court is now prepared to rule on the
pending Motion to Remand herein.
The facts of this case are set forth in great detail in the Court’s Orders in the related cases
of Krebs (Doc. No. 92), Levy v. Charlotte School of Law, et al., 3:17CV26-GCM (Doc. No. 62),
and Barchiesi v. Charlotte School of Law, et al., 3:16CV861-GCM (Doc. No. 41), and will not
be repeated herein. As the Court has determined that it cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over
Infilaw Holding, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand must be denied. The presence of Infilaw
Holding, the only non-diverse defendant, is disregarded for diversity jurisdiction purposes under
the doctrine of fraudulent joinder. Accordingly, the Court retains subject matter jurisdiction over
this case pursuant to diversity jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is hereby DENIED;
and Defendant Infilaw Holding is dismissed from this case;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall be consolidated with the other related
cases above for purposes of discovery.
Signed: November 14, 2017