Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies
-
Order | Filed: March 26, 2024 | Entered: March 26, 2024 Clark v. Colorado Division of Securities, The, et al.
Civil Rights: Other | Colorado
Judgment
FINAL JUDGMENT pursuant to 113 Order. Entered by the Clerk of the Court on 3/26/2024. (cpear)
-
Order | Filed: March 26, 2024 | Entered: March 26, 2024 Clark v. Colorado Division of Securities, The, et al.
Civil Rights: Other | Colorado
Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction Order on Motion to Compel Order on Motion for Review
Plaintiff filed his 1 Complaint asserting the Court's diversity jurisdiction over various state law claims against numerous Defendants, too many to list here. The various Defendants have filed four separate motions to dismiss (Dkts. 41 , 79 , 85 , and 88 ) and one motion to compel arbitration (Dkt. 90 ). The parties have filed additional response and reply briefs (Dkts. 58 , 84 , 87 , 94 , 100 - 104 ). In addition, Plaintiff filed a 107 Motion to Request Status Conference, to which one Defendant filed a 110 Response.
The first 41 Motion to Dismiss correctly argues complete diversity of state citizenship does not exist between Plaintiff and the Defendants. Plaintiff alleges he is a citizen of the State of Colorado. Dkt. 1 , p.9. The Complaint further alleges numerous Defendants are also Colorado citizens. Id. at pp.6-8 (table identifying 18 Defendants as residing in Colorado). Thus, the Complaint must be dismissed, without prejudice, for failing to plead allegations sufficient to demonstrate diversity jurisdiction exists. See Grynberg v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 805 F.3d 901, 905 (10th Cir. 2015) ("Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversityno plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant." (citations omitted)).
Plaintiff raises for the first time in his 58 Response to the first 41 Motion to Dismiss that federal question jurisdiction also exists. Dkt. 58 , p.3. Plaintiff cannot, however, amend the jurisdictional basis set forth in his 1 Complaint with his 58 Response to the 41 Motion to Dismiss. Sudduth v. Citimortgage, Inc., 79 F. Supp. 3d 1193, 1198 (D. Colo. 2015) ("Plaintiffs cannot amend their complaint by adding factual allegations ... (truncated) -
Order | Filed: January 25, 2024 | Entered: January 25, 2024 Clark v. Colorado Division of Securities, The, et al.
Civil Rights: Other | Colorado
Order Reassigning Case
ORDER OF TRANSFER by Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on 1/25/2024. Pursuant to Local Rule 40.1(a), with the approval of Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer and Judge S. Kato Crews, it is ordered that this matter be transferred to Judge Crews. All future pleadings should be designated as 23-cv-00191-SKC-JPO. (sphil, )
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login