Filed: Feb. 08, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2017
Summary: ORDER CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Company ("FDIC-R"), as receiver for GulfSouth Private Bank, seeks "a declaration that the mortgage encumbering certain real property and held by [Defendant] WLA Investments Inc." is Defendant William L. Amos's property. Pl.'s Resp. to Def. WLA's Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF No. 31. FDIC-R "seeks to attach and levy on the mortgage to help satisfy the over $3.5 million owed by Amos to" FDIC-R. Id. WLA Investments LLC
Summary: ORDER CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Company ("FDIC-R"), as receiver for GulfSouth Private Bank, seeks "a declaration that the mortgage encumbering certain real property and held by [Defendant] WLA Investments Inc." is Defendant William L. Amos's property. Pl.'s Resp. to Def. WLA's Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF No. 31. FDIC-R "seeks to attach and levy on the mortgage to help satisfy the over $3.5 million owed by Amos to" FDIC-R. Id. WLA Investments LLC,..
More
ORDER
CLAY D. LAND, Chief District Judge.
Plaintiff Federal Deposit Insurance Company ("FDIC-R"), as receiver for GulfSouth Private Bank, seeks "a declaration that the mortgage encumbering certain real property and held by [Defendant] WLA Investments Inc." is Defendant William L. Amos's property. Pl.'s Resp. to Def. WLA's Mot. to Dismiss 1, ECF No. 31. FDIC-R "seeks to attach and levy on the mortgage to help satisfy the over $3.5 million owed by Amos to" FDIC-R. Id.
WLA Investments LLC, which is not named as a party in this action, filed a motion to dismiss any claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. FDIC-R did not assert any claims against WLA Investments LLC, although FDIC-R does allege that WLA Investments LLC is also known as WLA Investments Inc. WLA Investments Inc. is a Defendant in this case. WLA Investments LLC argues that to the extent that FDIC-R attempts to assert any claims against it, those claims should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. FDIC-R contends that both WLA Investments LLC and WLA Investments Inc. waived personal jurisdiction by agreeing to a preliminary injunction.1
A defendant may waive personal jurisdiction. Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180 (1979), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Newton v. Thomason, 22 F.3d 1455, 1464 n.8 (9th Cir. 1994). Here, Both WLA Investments LLC and WLA Investments Inc. consented to a preliminary injunction in this action. Consent Order Granting Prelim. Inj. 1 & n.1, ECF No. 17. Under the preliminary injunction, WLA Investments LLC and WLA Investments Inc. agreed to be enjoined from taking several actions with regard to certain real property in Biloxi, Mississippi. Id. at 5-6. Neither WLA Investments LLC nor WLA Investments Inc. objected to jurisdiction in this Court or reserved the right to contest the Court's jurisdiction. When WLA Investments LLC and WLA Investments Inc. consented to the injunction, they "voluntarily acknowledged and acquiesced to the [Court's] authority to control their conduct." Aeration Sols., Inc. v. Dickman, 85 F. App'x 772, 774 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[F]ew actions [can] more clearly signal an acceptance of a court's jurisdiction than signing a stipulated injunction order. Such an action, without reservation, expressly indicates a party's willingness to submit itself to the equitable powers of the court." Id. at 775. For these reasons, the Court finds that if FDIC-R has asserted any claims against WLA Investments LLC, the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over WLA Investments LLC.2
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, WLA Investments LLC's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 26) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
