Starlink Logistics, Inc. v. ACC, LCC

Filing 283

ORDER DISMISSING CASE: For the reasons discussed in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant ACC, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 254 ). The Court accordingly hereby DENIES P laintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 257 ) and also DENIES AS MOOT Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 247 ). This is the final order in the case denying all relief. The Clerk shall enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58. The Clerk is directed to close the case file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 11/23/2022. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(hb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

STARLINK LOGISTICS INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACC, LLC and SMELTER SERVICE
CORP.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 1:12-cv-00011
JUDGE RICHARDSON

ORDER
For the reasons discussed in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court hereby
GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant ACC, LLC’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 254, “Motion”). Specifically, the Court GRANTS the Motion with respect to
Plaintiff’s Pre-Consent-Order Claims (as that term is defined in the accompanying Memorandum
Opinion) to the extent that the Pre-Consent-Order Claims seek civil penalties. The Court DENIES
the Motion in all other respects.
The Court hereby DISMISSES the remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant ACC,
LLC—including the Pre-Consent-Order Claims to the extent they seek injunctive and declaratory
relief, and the Post-Consent-Order claims with respect to all forms of relief sought—for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.1

To be clear, the Court is dismissing the bulk of Plaintiff’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
sua sponte, as it has the power and the duty to do. See Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011)
(“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their
jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook
or elect not to press.”). The Court notes that Defendant, in its summary-judgment briefing, alluded in places
to arguments that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction would be appropriate. But the Court
declines to characterize a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as a grant of summary judgment.
More to the point, the analysis in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion is largely the Court’s own rather
1

The Court also hereby DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction to the extent that they are asserted against Smelter Service Corp.
The Court accordingly hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
No. 257) and also DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc.
No. 247).
This is the final order in the case denying all relief. The Clerk shall enter judgment pursuant
to Rule 58. The Clerk is directed to close the case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
ELI RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

than the analysis set forth by Defendant in its brief in support of summary judgment. Accordingly, the
dismissal is properly deemed sua sponte and not properly part of a grant of summary judgment, except to
the extent noted above.