Filed: Jun. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Velez's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 7), Defendant Leonidas' Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 8), Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, (Doc. No. 19), Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery On Jurisdiction , (Doc. No. 24), Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct, (Doc. No. 33), the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M
Summary: ORDER ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Velez's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 7), Defendant Leonidas' Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 8), Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, (Doc. No. 19), Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery On Jurisdiction , (Doc. No. 24), Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct, (Doc. No. 33), the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&..
More
ORDER
ROBERT J. CONRAD, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Velez's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 7), Defendant Leonidas' Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and for Lack of Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 8), Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, (Doc. No. 19), Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery On Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 24), Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct, (Doc. No. 33), the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R"), (Doc. No. 39), Defendants' Objection to the M&R, (Doc. No. 42), and Plaintiff's Reply to Defendants' Objection to the M&R, (Doc. No. 44).
In the M&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that: Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery On Jurisdiction be granted; Plaintiff's Motions to Remand and for a Hearing be denied without prejudice to refile; and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss be denied without prejudice to refile. Defendants filed an Objection to the M&R of the Magistrate Judge on April 16, 2015, and Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendants' Objection on April 28, 2015. It is ripe for review.
In Defendants' Objection to the M&R, Defendants consented to personal jurisdiction. It is therefore unnecessary to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery On Jurisdiction. In all other respects, this Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law specified in the Magistrate Judge's M&R.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, (Doc. No. 19), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. Plaintiff's Motion For Jurisdictional Discovery, (Doc. No. 24), is DENIED AS MOOT.
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, (Doc. No. 33), is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint no later than twenty days after the effect of this order.
4. Plaintiff's Request for Hearing on Pending Motions is DENIED AS MOOT.
5. Defendant Leonidas' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted is DENIED AS MOOT, without prejudice to refile such motion, if appropriate, after the Amended Complaint is filed.
