Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PAYNE v. AHFI NETHERLANDS

January 18, 1980

DONALD E. PAYNE, PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT,
v.
AHFI NETHERLANDS, B.V., A CORPORATION, AND AMERICAN HOSPITAL SUPPLY CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS AND COUNTERCLAIMANTS, V. DAVID M. EDWARDS AND DANIEL C. LEE, ADDITIONAL COUNTERDEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bua, District Judge.

  ORDER

The present matter was brought before this court by plaintiff/counterdefendant Donald E. Payne. In his three count complaint, Payne seeks to recover from defendants/counterclaimants AHFI Netherlands, B.V. [AHFI] and American Hospital Supply Corporation [AHSC] for fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract. These claims, it is contended, developed out of the employment relationship Payne maintained with AHFI and AHSC. Plaintiff/counterdefendant Payne, a citizen of the United Kingdom, resides outside of the United States. That being so, as the amount in controversy with respect to his claims exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and there is complete diversity between Payne and the defendants/counterclaimants, subject matter jurisdiction over his complaint properly lies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).

Included in the AHFI-AHSC response to the Payne complaint is a three count counterclaim, naming Payne, David M. Edwards and Daniel C. Lee as counterdefendants. This counterclaim, being compulsory in nature, is looked upon for jurisdictional purposes as being ancillary to the primary claim raised by plaintiff/counterdefendant Payne. Accordingly, as there is subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Payne complaint, the AHFI-AHSC counterclaim also is properly before the court.

Now before the court are a number of motions, filed by plaintiff/counterdefendant Payne and counterdefendants Edwards and Lee, challenging the propriety and validity of the AHFI-AHSC counterclaim. Said motions include:

  (1) Counterdefendants Lee and Edwards' motion to
      dismiss the counterclaim, to the extent it
      relates to them, for lack of personal
      jurisdiction. Rule 12(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P.
  (2) Counterdefendants Lee and Edwards' motion to
      dismiss the entire counterclaim for failing
      to state a claim upon which relief can be
      granted. Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.
  (3) Counterdefendants Lee and Edwards' motion to
      dismiss the entire counterclaim for reasons
      of improper venue. Rule 12(b)(3),
      Fed.R.Civ.P.
  (4) Counterdefendants Lee and Edwards' motion to
      dismiss the counterclaim, to the extent it
      relates to them, for lack of subject matter
      jurisdiction. Rule 12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.
  (5) Plaintiff/counterdefendant Payne's motion to
      dismiss Counts I and II of the counterclaim
      for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rule
      12(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.
  (6) Counterdefendants Lee and Edwards' motion to
      have the present action and counterclaim
      transferred to the Central District of
      California. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Also before the court is the motion of defendants/counterclaimants AHFI and AHSC seeking an award to them of those attorneys' fees and costs incurred in opposing the aforementioned motions. Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P.; Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, § 41.

For the reasons stated below, it is the conclusion of this court that all of the motions under discussion should be denied. Accordingly, it is so ordered.

Lee — Edwards Motion to Dismiss

For Lack of Personal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.