Danmar Lines, Ltd. v. CMA - CGM S.A. 1:2016cv03925 | US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Danmar Lines, Ltd. v. CMA - CGM S.A.

Plaintiff:	Danmar Lines, Ltd.
Defendant:	CMA - CGM S.A.
Case Number:	1:2016cv03925
Filed:	March 31, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Office:	Chicago Office
County:	Cook
Presiding Judge:	Milton I. Shadur
Nature of Suit:	Other Contract
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1333
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
April 4, 2016	Filing 4 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Swiss corporation Danmar Lines, Ltd. ("Danmar") has just sued foreign corporationCMA - CGM S.A. ("CGM"), attempting to invoke both diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 13321 and admiralty juri sdiction under Section 1333. But because Danmar's counsel clearly have not read Section 1332(a) or the caselaw dealing with diversity between alien corporations (see, e.g., 15 Moore's Federal Practice §§ 102.77 and 102.55 (3d ed. 2005) and the many cases cited in both sections), this action will proceed solely in admiralty. And because Complaint paragraph 3 also seeks to call the supplemental jurisdiction provisions of Section 1367(a) into play, this Court leaves to the fut ure the question whether any aspect of state law may apply to the litigation. With those things said, this action may proceed in the regular course, except as CGM may raise issues beyond those stated here. To that end, this Court is contemporaneously issuing its customary form of initial scheduling order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 4/4/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )

Date Filed

Document Text

April 4, 2016

Filing 4 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: Swiss corporation Danmar Lines, Ltd. ("Danmar") has just sued foreign corporationCMA - CGM S.A. ("CGM"), attempting to invoke both diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 13321 and admiralty juri sdiction under Section 1333. But because Danmar's counsel clearly have not read Section 1332(a) or the caselaw dealing with diversity between alien corporations (see, e.g., 15 Moore's Federal Practice §§ 102.77 and 102.55 (3d ed. 2005) and the many cases cited in both sections), this action will proceed solely in admiralty. And because Complaint paragraph 3 also seeks to call the supplemental jurisdiction provisions of Section 1367(a) into play, this Court leaves to the fut ure the question whether any aspect of state law may apply to the litigation. With those things said, this action may proceed in the regular course, except as CGM may raise issues beyond those stated here. To that end, this Court is contemporaneously issuing its customary form of initial scheduling order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 4/4/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Danmar Lines, Ltd. v. CMA - CGM S.A.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Danmar Lines, Ltd.
Represented By:	Emily Louise Hussey
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: CMA - CGM S.A.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?