Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00792-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD HOMEM and WENDY HOMEM,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

INTEC CORPORATION and JIM

CHAMBLEE,

Defendants 

INTEC USA, LLC,

Third-Party Complainant

 v.

APV NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant

 /

No. C 05-0792 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART THIRDPARTY DEFENDANT’S APPLICATIONS

FOR ORDERS SHORTENING TIME;

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE;

DIRECTING THIRD-PARTY

COMPLAINANT TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY FIRST AMENDED THIRD-PARTY

COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION

Before the Court are three motions filed by third-party defendant APV North

America, Inc. (“APV”): (1) APV’s “Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative to Sever the Third

Party Action, and/or Change the Trial Date and Enlarge Time for the Settlement

Conference, Pretrial Conference, and Discovery Cutoff,” filed November 3, 2006;

(2) APV’s “Motion to Open Discovery, Continue Expert Depositions, and Establish A New

Deadline for Expert Disclosures,” filed November 4, 2006; and (3) APV’s “Motion to Open

Discovery,” filed November 4, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 268 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

For example, in light of the above-referenced order of dismissal, to the extent one of

APV’s motions seeks a severance, such motion is moot.

2

Although APV has noticed each such motion for hearing on December 15, 2006,

APV has filed, with respect to each motion, an application for an order shortening time such

that the matters can be heard Friday, November 10, 2006. November 10, 2006 is an

official court holiday and, in any event, APV’s proposed schedule provides inadequate time

for Intec USA, LLC’s (“Intec”) response. Moreover, by separate order filed concurrently

herewith, the Court has dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against Intec in light of a settlement

entered after the filing of APV’s motions, which settlement may have some bearing on

Intec’s response.1 Nevertheless, given the relative imminency of the pretrial and trial, the

Court hereby GRANTS in part the applications for orders shortening time and sets the

following briefing schedule on APV’s three motions:

1. Intec’s oppositions shall be filed on or before 4:00 p.m., November 15, 2006.

2. APV’s replies shall be filed on or before 4:00 p.m., November 17, 2006, on which

date, unless the parties are otherwise advised, the matter shall stand submitted.

Additionally, at the time it responds to APV’s motion to dismiss, Intec is hereby

ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why its First Amended Third-Party Complaint should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Intec has not expressly alleged a basis for

jurisdiction, and, to the extent, its allegations regarding the parties’ respective principal

places of the business are intended to suggest the parties are of diverse citizenship, (see

First Amended Third-Party Complaint ¶¶ 1-2), such allegations are insufficient for such

purpose. Specifically, Intec has not alleged the state in which APV is incorporated. 

Further, Intec has not alleged that each of Intec’s owners/members is a citizen of a state

other than the state of APV’s incorporation or the State of Illinois, in which Intec alleges

APV has its principal place of business. See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage,

LP, 437 F. 3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding limited liability corporation is “citizen of

//

//

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 268 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

every state in which its owners/members are citizens”). Finally, Intec has not alleged the

requisite amount in controversy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 Dated: November 8, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00792-MMC Document 268 Filed 11/08/06 Page 3 of 3