Dauenhauer et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Realign Parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles on 4/17/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

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

DOLORES-ROSE DAUENHAUER, and
HELEN E. CHAMBERLAIN

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
vs.
) CASE NO. 3:12-1026
) JUDGE NIXON/KNOWLES
)
)
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al. )
)
Defendants.
)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Realign the Parties.” Docket
No. 38. Plaintiffs have filed a supporting memorandum. Docket No. 39. Certain defendants
have filed a response in opposition to the Motion. Docket No. 43.
The Court notes that the instant motion is apparently, word-for-word, identical to a
“Motion to Realign Parties” that was filed in Smith v. America’s Wholesale Lender, et al., Case
No. 3:10-0800, United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, pending before
Judge Campbell.1 The Court further notes that the supporting memorandum in Smith and the
“argument” portion of Defendants’ response in Smith appears to be identical to the same
documents in the instant case.
On March 13, 2013, Judge Campbell entered a Memorandum and Order (Docket Nos.
172, 173) denying the Motion to Realign Parties filed in Smith.

1

Counsel for Plaintiffs in Smith is also counsel for Plaintiffs in the case at bar.

The undersigned adopts the analysis in Judge Campbell’s well-reasoned Memorandum.
Briefly, as Judge Campbell noted, the cases cited by Plaintiffs are cases in which parties were
realigned for jurisdictional purposes. In the case at bar, as in Smith, Plaintiffs allege that
jurisdiction is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).
There is no allegation of diversity jurisdiction, and Plaintiffs do not ask the Court to realign the
parties for jurisdictional purposes. Plaintiffs simply want the Court to realign the parties for
purposes of the burden of proof.
For the forgoing reasons, the instant Motion to Realign Parties (Docket No. 38) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
E. CLIFTON KNOWLES
United States Magistrate Judge