Paraclete Investments, LLC v. Gary A. Barney, Trustee of Riverbend Ranch Trust I et al

Filing 8

ORDER SUSTAINING 7 Objections AND REJECTING 4 Memorandum and Recommendation.(Signed by Judge Gray H Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
PARACLETE INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY A. BARNEY, TRUSTEE OF RIVERBEND
RANCH TRUST I, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION H-18-2024

ORDER
Pending before the court is a memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) filed by
Magistrate Judge Nancy Johnson. Dkt. 4. Judge Johnson recommends dismissing the case for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 4. Plaintiff Paraclete Investments, LLC (“Paraclete”) amended
its complaint and timely objected.1 Dkts. 6, 7. Having considered the M&R, amended complaint,
objection, and applicable law, Paraclete’s objection is SUSTAINED and the M&R is REJECTED
AS MOOT.
In Paraclete’s original complaint, it alleges that it shares its citizenship with multiple
defendants and does not allege a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See Dkt. 1. Thus, Judge
Johnson recommends dismissing the case. Dkt. 4 at 4. The court agrees that Paraclete’s original
complaint does not provide a basis for the court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction. However,
Paraclete has since amended its complaint and no longer alleges claims against the nondiverse

1

For dispositive matters, the court “determine[s] de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “The district judge may
accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter
to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.

defendants. Dkt. 6. Paraclete no longer shares its citizenship with any defendant. See id. Thus,
Paraclete cured the jurisdictional defects and the M&R is moot. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); see also
Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Glob. Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 572, 124 S. Ct. 1920 (2004) (“Caterpillar
broke no new ground, because the jurisdictional defect it addressed had been cured by the dismissal
of the party that had destroyed diversity. That method of curing a jurisdictional defect had long been
an exception to the time-of-filing rule.”).
Accordingly, Paraclete’s objection (Dkt. 7) is SUSTAINED and the M&R (Dkt. 4) is
REJECTED AS MOOT.
Signed at Houston, Texas on July 13, 2018.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge

2