Mashak et al v. Meeks-Hull et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 9 Motion for court order requiring attorney Joe O'Brien to turn over file to plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 7/1/2010. (eds),(ps)

M a s h a k et al v. Meeks-Hull et al

D o c . 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------1 st NATIONAL REPOSSESSORS, INC. an d DON MASHAK, ORDER Plaintiff, 0 9 -c v -7 8 3 -s lc 1 v. D A N N E T T E MEEKS-HULL and M IC H A E L HULL, D efendan ts. --------------------------------------------In this action, plaintiff Don Mashak sought to remove two Minnesota cases to this court. (I will refer to Mashak as plaintiff throughout this order because that is how he has cap tio n ed his notice of removal.) On February 26, 2010, I issued an order remanding M in n eso ta case no. CO-08-405 on the ground as plaintiff in that action, Mashak could not rem ov e the case. I remanded the case, but gave him another opportunity to explain his basis for the removal of Minnesota case no. 30-CV-08-1298. Plaintiff responded, but failed to sh ow how that case arose under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States or

1

For the purpose of issuing this order, I am assuming jurisdiction over the case.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

p resen ted a controversy between citizens of different states exceeding the sum or value of $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 . Therefore, on March 17, 2010, I issued an order remanding case no.

30 -CV -08 -12 98 . Now plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the March 17 order, arguing th at case no. 30-CV-08-1298 indeed involves a controversy exceeding the sum or value of $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 because defendants Dannette Meeks-Hull and Michael Hull "acted to destroy [p lain tiff's] business as a matter of simple industrial espionage." I will deny this motion for tw o reasons. First, although plaintiff argues that more than $75,000 was in controversy in case no. 30-CV-08-1298, the documents he submitted show that the state case is an action fo r a temporary restraining order against plaintiff. Not only is that case resolved, leaving no thing to remove, but there is no reason to believe that plaintiff could recover damages in that case. Second, the case cannot be removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff does not show that the parties are citizens of different states. A cco rd in gly, I will deny plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. F in ally, plaintiff has filed a motion asking the court for an injunction ordering Joe O 'Br ien (who appears to be an attorney retained by plaintiff for this case, although O'Brien never made an appearance) to return plaintiff's copy of "the file" in this case to him. As this case has been resolved, there is no reason for this court to consider plaintiff's request. If plaintiff believes that O'Brien has taken his property unlawfully, his recourse is in the state

2

cou rts.

ORDER IT IS ORDERED that 1. Plaintiff Don Mashak's motion for reconsideration of the court's March 17, 2010 o rder, dkt. #8, is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief against Joe O'Brien, dkt. #9, is DENIED. E n tered this 1st day of July, 2010. B Y THE COURT: /s/ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3