ALTMAN v. LIBERTY HELICOPTERS, INC. et al

Filing 52

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS UNITED STATES AVIATION UNDERWRITERS AND UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT INSURANCE GROUP'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT IN WHOLE OR IN PART,OR, IN THE AL TERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER VENUE FROM THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IS DISMISSED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY DISMISS UNITED STATES AIRCRAFT INSURANCE GROUP WITHOUT PREJUDICE IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT IS DENIED; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDMUND V. LUDWIG ON 1/13/10. 1/14/10 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED.(jl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA P A M E L A ALTMAN v. L IB E R T Y HELICOPTERS, INC., et al. : : : : : ORDER A N D NOW, this 13 th day of January, 2010, it is ordered as follows: C IV IL ACTION

N o . 09-4437

1 . "Defendants United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. and United States Aircraft In su ra n c e Group's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint" (docket no.17) is g ra n ted , and this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The motions to d is m is s of defendants Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company (docket no. 18), Arch In s u ra n c e Company (docket no. 20), and American Eurocopter, LLC (docket no. 24), joining i n the motion of United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc. and United States Aircraft G ro u p 's motion, are also granted. 2 . The "Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint in Whole or in Part, or, in the A lte rn a ti v e , to Transfer Venue from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the District of N e w Jersey" (docket no. 19), filed by defendants Meridian Consulting I Corporation, Inc. and L ib e rty Helicopters, Inc., is dismissed as moot in light of the dismissal of the entire action f o r lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3 . "Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss United States Aircraft Insurance Group (U S A IG ) Without Prejudice" (docket no. 36) is denied because USAIG is an indispensable p a r t y.

4. "Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint" (docket no. 25) is denied b e c au s e any amendment would be futile. A memorandum accompanies this order.

B Y THE COURT: /s/ Edmund V. Ludwig Edmund V. Ludwig, J.