Paradysz Inc. v. Blackstreet Capital Holdings, LLC et al
| Paradysz Inc. |
| Blackstreet Capital Holdings, LLC, Premier Care, LLC, Premier Care Holdings, Inc., Premier Baths, Inc., Justin Cooper, Lawrence Bregel, Jonathan Tipton and Lawrence S. Berger |
| 1:2016cv03849 |
| May 23, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| Andrew L. Carter |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
87
OPINION AND ORDER re: 60 FIRST MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint, filed by Justin Cooper, 63 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction , filed by Jonathan Tipton, Premier Care Holdings, Inc., Premier Care, LLC, B lackstreet Capital Holdings, LLC, Lawrence S. Berger, 58 MOTION to Dismiss Notice of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed by Lawrence Bregel. The Court will allow three weeks from the date of this Order for PMX Agency to amend the complaint and submit the letter. The failure to do so will result in the immediate remand of this matter to the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. The Defendants may submit a response, also no longer than three pages and no later than a week after PMX Agency's submission, and may include additional affidavits or declarations. Because it is not clear that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction and federal courts generally must decide the jurisdictional question first, the Court will not address at this time Defendant Bregel's and Cooper's motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim and the rest of the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of pe rsonal jurisdiction. See Werekoh v. Commissioner of Social Sec., No. 12 Civ. 6954, 2013 WL 4407063, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug 19, 2013) ("A court must decide a Rule 12(b)(1) motion before any other motion to dismiss because a court may not act if it lacks jurisdiction."). These motions (ECF No. 58, 60, 63) are denied as moot, without prejudice to renewal in the event that PMX Agency demonstrates that the Court does have subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and as further set forth herein. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 8/21/2017) (ras)
|
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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
