Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
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.
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