Case ID: f-appx_464/html/0517-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ENGINTEC CORP., an Ohio Corp.; Lisa G. Huff; Reggie D. Huff; David A. Brys; Franklin H. Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Roderick A. BOUTIN; Vincent Marino; Robert K. Jackson; Luann Jackson; John D. Hallsworth, Jr.; L.B. Land, Inc., an Oregon Corp.; Jackson Family Trust; JDH Services, Inc., an Oregon Corp.; Christopher Miller; Matthew K. Napier; Robert W. Harris; Mark J. Endre; John/Jane Does, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-3994.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    March 16, 2012.
    Before: GILMAN, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs Engintee Corp., Reggie Huff, Lisa Huff, Franklin Johnson, and David Brys (collectively “Engintee”) appeal from a district court order dismissing their complaint against various Defendants. The district court dismissed seven of the thirteen Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed Engintec’s entire complaint with prejudice for violating Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and for acting in bad faith. Engintee appeals both holdings.

After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, and hearing oral argument, this Court determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment dismissing Engintec’s complaint with prejudice for the reasons stated in Judge Lioi’s July 27, 2009 Memorandum Opinion, with the following qualification:

The district court’s analysis of Rules 8(a) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is applicable to Engintec’s entire complaint, as it relates to all claims and all Defendants, and we find this analysis dispositive. Therefore, we adopt the district court’s summation of the facts and procedure in Section I of its opinion and its analysis of Rules 8 and 41 in Section II.C and affirm dismissal of Engintec’s entire complaint with prejudice.