Ohio Department of Commerce v. Jarvis

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 10 , GRANTING 3 Motion to Remand, DENYING AS MOOT 13 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Wesley Jarvis and DENYING AS MOOT 12 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Wesley Jarvis. This Court finds that Defendant's objections are without merit and are hereby OVERRULED. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 04/13/2020. (mdr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
DIVISION OF SECURITIES,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 2:20-cv-908
JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH
Magistrate Judge Jolson

WESLEY JARVIS,
Defendant.

ORDER
On March 26, 2020, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 3) be granted. (See
Report and Recommendation, Doc. 10). The parties were advised of their right to object to the
Report and Recommendation. This matter is now before the Court on Defendant’s Objections to
the Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. 11). The Court will consider the matter de novo.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In addition to his Objections, Defendant has
also filed a Motion for Permanent Injunction and an Application for an Order to Show Cause and
for Permanent Injunction against Plaintiff and United States. (Docs. 12 and 13).
In his objections, Defendant asserts that “wesley jason, jarvis specifically appears as
Principal (hereinafter “Principal”) of the Registered International Organization, Wesley Jason
Jarvis, and denies all presumptions that he is a resident of or an agent for, or, under the control of
the STATE OF OHIO or the UNITED STATES.” (Doc. 11, Def.’s Objs. at 1). Defendant
further asserts that he “invokes his Choice of Law In Chancery through the filing of his Bill of

Complaint. (Id. at 1-2). Despite the lengthy documents submitted by Defendant, he fails to
counter the arguments in support of remand, that his Notice of Removal was untimely and that
this Court does not have jurisdiction over this case. The Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusions that this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this case because
Plaintiff is an arm of the State of Ohio, and Defendant is also a resident of Ohio, residing at 572
E. Broad St., Pataskala, Ohio. The parties are therefore not diverse and the Court cannot
exercise diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly, this matter must be
remanded to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above and as set forth in detail in the Report and
Recommendation, this Court finds that Defendant’s objections are without merit and are hereby
OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation, Document 10, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED. This matter is hereby REMANDED to the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Additionally, Defendant’s Motion for Permanent
Injunction and an Application for an Order to Show Cause and for Permanent Injunction against
Plaintiff and United States are DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk shall remove Documents 3, 10, 12, and 13 from the Court’s pending motions
list and remand this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ George C. Smith__________________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2