UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PT PUKUAFU INDAH, PT LEBONG

TANDAI, PT TANJUNG SERA PUNG,

GIDEON MINERALS U.S.A., INC.,

and DR. LEONARD L.J. YOUNG,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 09-10943

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

UNITED STATES SECURITIES &

EXCHANGE COMMISSION, MARY

J. SCHAPIRO, THE EXPORT IMPORT

BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, JAMES H.

LAMBRIGHT, JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.,

NEWMONT MINING CORP., GOLDMAN 

SACHS GROUP, INC., 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLC,

JAMES NELSON LANE, DEVONWOOD

CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, and

NEW CANAAN SOCIETY,

Defendant.

____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT’S JULY 15, 2009 OPINION AND

ORDER

At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District

of Michigan, on July 31, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

 U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

This matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration

of this Court’s July 15, 2009 opinion and order granting Defendant Newmont Mining

2:09-cv-10943-PJD-VMM Doc # 77 Filed 07/31/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1745
2

Corporation’s (Newmont’s) motion to dismiss and denying as moot Plaintiffs’ motion for

emergency preliminary injunction and motion for partial summary judgment. The Court

granted Newmont’s motion to dismiss because the Court concluded that it lacked personal

jurisdiction over this defendant. Plaintiffs’ summary judgment and preliminary injunction

motions were rendered moot by the dismissal of Newmont because, in those motions,

Plaintiffs sought relief from Newmont, only. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration

of the Court’s decision on July 25, 2009.

Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(g) provides that a motion for

reconsideration only should be granted if the movant demonstrates that the Court and the

parties have been misled by a palpable defect and that a different disposition of the case

must result from a correction of such a palpable defect. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(g). A motion

that merely presents the same issues already ruled upon by the Court shall not be granted. 

Id. 

Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a palpable defect in this Court’s conclusion that

Newmont lacks sufficient contacts with the forum to enable the Court to exercise

jurisdiction over it. Plaintiffs do not identify any facts that the Court overlooked in

analyzing Newmont’s contacts with the forum, nor do they identify any errors in the

Court’s legal analysis. This Court cannot “put [this] Defendant[] to [its] proofs”– as

Plaintiffs contend it must (see Pls.’ Mot. at 5)– if personal jurisdiction is lacking. 

Plaintiffs appear to believe that this Court can adjudicate their claims so long as it

has jurisdiction over the subject matter of their complaint. Subject matter jurisdiction,

2:09-cv-10943-PJD-VMM Doc # 77 Filed 07/31/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 1746
3

however, is neither the same as nor a substitute for personal jurisdiction. The Court must

have both to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ claims with respect to a particular defendant.

In their motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs complain that Defendants have

manipulated the judicial system so as to delay Plaintiffs from seeking justice. Plaintiffs

note the various actions they have taken against Newmont in other jurisdictions

(including previous lawsuits they have filed) from which they have been unable to

procure relief. Whether Defendants properly thwarted Plaintiffs’ prior actions– whether

via motions to dismiss or otherwise– is neither before this Court nor relevant to its

personal jurisdiction analysis. In this case, however, Newmont has done exactly what

federal case law interpreting the United States Constitution and the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure permit: seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit filed in a jurisdiction in which the

defendant lacks minimum contacts.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Dr. Leonard L.J. Young

Counsel of Record

2:09-cv-10943-PJD-VMM Doc # 77 Filed 07/31/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 1747