Tennessee Rand, Inc. v. Gestamp Washtenaw, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
• Decided: January 22, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-02433
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ----------------------------------------------------------------------- : TENNESSEE RAND, INC., : : CASE NO. 1:20-cv-02433 Plaintiff, : : vs. : OPINION & ORDER : [Resolving Doc. 18; Doc. 18-1] GESTAMP WASHTENAW, LLC, ET AL., : : Defendants. : : -----------------------------------------------------------------------

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Defendants Gestamp Washtenaw, LLC; Gestamp West Virginia, LLC; Gestamp Chattanooga, LLC; and Gestamp North America, Inc. move the Court1 to stay the Case Management Conference Scheduling Order2 in this case. The Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to stay the Case Management Conference Scheduling Order. Defendants filed a pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.3 Defendants now seek to stay the portion of the Case Management Conference Scheduling Order requiring them to answer Plaintiff’s complaint until the Court rules on the motion to dismiss.4 Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion.

1 Doc. 18; Doc. 18-1 2 Doc. 15. 3 Doc. 13; Doc. 13-1 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2–3)). 4 Doc. 18 at 1. This Court “requires defendants to file an answer to the complaint regardless of Answering Plaintiff’s complaint and filing counterclaims will not waive the 12(b) personal jurisdiction and venue defenses Defendants have already asserted in their motion to dismiss. Even Defendants’ cited authorities suggest this conclusion.5 Moreover, “[t]o waive or forfeit a personal jurisdiction defense, a defendant must give a plaintiff a reasonable expectation that it will defend the suit on the merits. . . .”6 But here, Defendants have already asserted their personal jurisdiction defense and made their intentions clear. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to stay the Case Management Conference Scheduling Order and ORDERS Defendants to file any answer

within 14 days. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2020 JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 , No. 1:12cv709, 2014 WL 1308505, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2014) (“The Court notes that the federal courts of appeals which have addressed the issue have concluded that the filing of a counterclaim, in and of itself, does not operate as a waiver to personal jurisdiction.”); 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1397 (3d ed. 2008) (“Since a defendant who is contemplating . . . a counterclaim always can avoid waiver by raising his defenses through pre-answer motion or by asserting his counterclaim through a pleading amendment, permitting a counterclaim to be asserted in the answer without waiving Rule 12(b) defenses comports with the policy behind the federal rules of favoring substance over form.”). 6 , 649 F.3d 514, 519 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting 623 F.3d 440, 443 (7th Cir.2010)).