Cox Airparts LLC v. Brown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Cox Airparts LLC, No. CV-23-01466-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Kevin Brown, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 The court directed plaintiff Cox Airparts LLC to file a statement establishing the 16 presence of federal jurisdiction. (Doc. 56.) Cox’s statement argues that “[c]onsidering the 17 valid concerns raised by the Court . . . the most pragmatic approach at this time is to dismiss 18 the present case against MJP Services, LLC without prejudice.” (Doc. 57 at 2.) Cox then 19 explains it has reached a settlement with defendant Kevin Brown that will “resolve all 20 disputes between the parties in this action.” (Doc. 57 at 2.) 21 The court’s jurisdictional concerns apply to all defendants. As previously explained, 22 defendants were previously found jointly and severally liable for all the amounts owing. 23 Cox filed this suit hoping to collect those amounts but “the only possible outcome of the 24 present suit appears to be a second judgment that would provide no relief to Cox.” (Doc. 25 56 at 2.) A second judgment would provide no relief, whether entered against MJP Services 26 LLC, Kevin Brown, or any other defendant. Because there is no possible relief available, 27 the court lacks jurisdiction. And having reached that conclusion, the court “is required to 28 dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” Rainero v. Archon Corp., 844 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir. 1 || 2016) (simplified) 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 51) is DENIED AS MOOT. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment of 6 || dismissal without prejudice and close this case. 7 Dated this 18th day of March, 2025. 8 9 “/ □□ Vo A.) 4 / , 10 AA AOA FY KA" □ Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-