Paragon Tank Truck Equipment LLC v. Parish Truck Sales Inc

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 4/11/13 granting 5 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Clerk of court will enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice. (cc: all counsel) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

PARAGON TANK TRUCK
EQUIPMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-C-0061

PARISH TRUCK SALES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
Two matters are before me now. The first is the defendant’s response to my order
to show cause why this action should not be remanded to state court for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. In my order, I identified two defects in the jurisdictional allegations of
the notice of removal: (1) the plaintiff is a limited liability company, yet the notice of removal
does not identify the citizenship of the plaintiff’s members; and (2) the defendant is a
corporation, yet the notice of removal does not identify the defendant’s state of
incorporation.

In response to my order, the defendant has supplied the missing

information. It informs me that the members of the plaintiff are citizens of Texas, Georgia,
and Wisconsin, and that the defendant’s state of incorporation is Louisiana. As the
defendant has already alleged that its principal place of business is also Louisiana, I am
satisfied that I have subject matter jurisdiction.
The second matter is the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction. The defendant filed that motion on February 13, 2013. Under the local rules
of this court, the plaintiff’s response to the motion was due within 21 days. See Civil L. R.
7(b). However, the plaintiff has yet to file any response to the motion. Under the local

rules, “[f]ailure to file a memorandum in opposition to a motion is sufficient cause for the
Court to grant the motion.” Civil L.R. 7(d). Although I would ordinarily issue a warning to
a litigant who has failed to file a response to a motion before granting the motion pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 7(d), in the present case the plaintiff seems to have abandoned the
case. The Clerk of Court has issued three notices to plaintiff directing it to file its
consent/refusal-to-consent form regarding the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate
judge, yet the plaintiff has not responded. See ECF No. 6. Thus, it appears that issuing
a warning would be futile. Accordingly, I will grant the defendant’s motion pursuant to Civil
Local Rule 7(d).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. The clerk of court shall enter judgment dismissing this
case without prejudice.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 11th day of April, 2013.
s/ Lynn Adelman
_______________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

2