Plaintiff has sued GM for infringing the '636 patent. The technology in question is patented in U.S. Plaintiff alleges that GM stole his trade secrets and incorporated the stolen technology into its LT1 engine. Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Connecticut Superior Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The addition of ECS, a nondiverse party, deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. In all other respects, the motion is denied without prejudice. GM will not be unduly prejudiced by the amendment or the remand.Īccordingly, plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is granted insofar as it seeks to add ECS as a party. Here, plaintiff's motive is not to defeat federal jurisdiction but to ensure that the trade secret claims are litigated on the merits in a court of unquestioned jurisdiction. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 3721, at 218-19. Moreover, if ECS is not added as a party, there is a risk that the trade secret claims will not be tried on the merits here or in state court.Ī federal court must be "cautious about remand, lest it erroneously deprive defendant of a right to a federal forum." 14A Charles A. Adding ECS over GM's objection is appropriate because GM contends that ECS is the only real party in interest. § 1447(e) (court may permit joinder of nondiverse defendants after removal and remand action to state court). In removal cases, nondiverse parties can be added even though their presence destroys diversity. Because Evans has sufficient standing to maintain the action, his motion for leave to amend may be considered on the merits. Whether he has assigned his entire interest in the trade secrets to ECS presents a fair issue for further litigation. But it is not obvious that Evans lacks standing. If Evans plainly lacked standing, such that his assertion of standing could be deemed frivolous, GM might be correct. GM argues that Evans' lack of standing deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore precludes granting the amendment to add ECS as a party. GM opposes a remand and urges the court to dismiss the case instead.Īfter careful consideration, I have concluded that plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add ECS as a party should be granted and that his motion to remand the case should be granted as well. Recognizing this, Evans requests that the case be remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Accordingly, they cannot be added without destroying diversity jurisdiction. Like GM, ECS and PEF are Delaware corporations. Pending before the court are two motions: a motion by GM to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that Evans has assigned his interest in the alleged trade secrets to ECS and therefore lacks standing to prosecute the action himself and a motion by Evans for leave to file a second amended complaint to add ECS and PEF as plaintiffs. The action was properly removed because Evans is a Connecticut resident and GM is a Delaware corporation. GM removed the action to this court based on diversity jurisdiction. ("PEF"), providing for funding of the litigation. Shortly after the action was filed, Evans and ECS entered into an agreement with Patent Enforcement Fund, Inc. Prior to filing the action, Evans assigned his rights in certain patents and other things to Evans Cooling Systems, Inc. Evans brought this action in Connecticut Superior Court against defendant General Motors Corporation seeking damages for misappropriation of trade secrets. Veenstra, General Motors, Detroit, MI, for defendant. ![]() Putnam, David Brafman, Kirkland & Ellis, New York City, Tim G. Robinson, Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, CT, John Donofrio, Jonathan F. Dennis Allegretti, Allegretti & Witcoff, Ltd., Boston, MA, Robert A. Shifley, Allegretti & Witcoff, Chicago, IL, D. Goring, Jr., Stonington, CT, for plaintiff. Northrup, Dressler, Goldsmith, Shore & Milnamow, Chicago, IL, Albert E. Dixon, Goring & Dixon, Winsted, CT, Annette M. Fink, Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, Chicago, IL, Susan E. The State Bar of Texas has launched a registration process for the new inductees to be able to register online click on the link for more information.United States District Court, D. Grade Release FAQ's - Please review these Frequently Asked Questions prior to contacting our office with inquiries. The individual's examinee number is provided as a second identifier. Examinees who passed the July 2012 Texas Bar ExaminationĪn asterisk next to a name indicates that the Applicant was successful on the examination but is lacking an eligibility requirement which may include one or more of the following: Proof of citizenship ( Rule II(a)(5)) Law Study RequirementB ( Rule III) Good Moral Character & Fitness ( Rule IV) or a passing score on the MPRE ( Rule V).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |