Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)


Download Files


Document in Context
May 14, 2018
PDF | More
ENTRY denying Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. See Entry. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 5/14/2018. (SWM)
July 6, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - Plaintiff John Miller was injured after falling, along with his forklift, from the back of a box truck after the truck allegedly moved away from the loading dock. [Filing No. 1-1 at 3.] Mr. Miller brought suit in state court against Defendant Panther II Transportation, Inc. ("Panther"), believing the driver of the box truck to be the "employee and/or agent" of Panther and alleging Panther to be vicariously liable for the driver's negligence. [Filing No. 1-1 at 4.] Mr. Miller's claim of mistake due to a lack of knowledge of the Putative Defendants does not foreclose him from invoking the relation back doctrine should the Putative Defendants raise the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense. Accordingly, Mr. Miller may not be prevented on futility grounds from naming the Putative Defendants as parties to this lawsuit. The Court therefore SUSTAINS Mr. Miller's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order 30 and GRANTS Mr. Miller leave to file an amended complaint. One issue remains, however. Mr. Miller's proposed amended complaint, [Filing No. 17-1], alleges that he does not know the citizenship of Expediter's members. The Court therefore ORDERS Mr. Miller to conduct whatever investigation may be necessary to properly allege Expediter's citizenship and to file an amended complaint reflecting the proper jurisdictional allegations on or before July 20, 2018. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/6/2018. (APD)
September 25, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - While masquerading as a factual challenge to diversity jurisdiction, Mr. Miller provides no evidence to contradict Panther's showing of complete diversity. Mr. Miller's challenge is thus accurately characterized as a facial challenge, and that challenge fails in light of Panther's affidavits establishing that Expediter is a citizen of Tennessee, Wyoming, Missouri, Arizona, and New Jersey--but not Indiana, of which Mr. Miller is a citizen. Panther has met its burden of alleging that all defendants are diverse from Mr. Miller, as required to invoke this Court's diversity jurisdiction. The Court therefore DENIES Mr. Miller's Motion to Remand 36 and additionally GRANTS Panther's Motion for Leave to File Surreply 52 (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/25/2018. (DWH)