Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Dubyak Nelson x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Contract: Other | Ohio Northern
Order
Order [non-document] As reflected in the Court's October 8, 2026 Minutes, the Court noted that "[c]ounsel for Third-Party Defendant was ordered to file a notice identifying members of Third-Party Defendant and any sub-members to allow the Court to determine if it has diversity jurisdiction by October 15, 2027." Based upon the Court's independent research, the Court withdraws that Order. The Sixth Circuit has found that third party claims "generally do not require an independent jurisdictional basis" and such claims fall within the court's supplemental jurisdiction if the impleaded defendant's actions share a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the case already before the court." Grimes v. Mazda N. Am. Operations, 355 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 512 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2008) ("Cooper Tire's third-party complaint was entirely proper when it was filed pursuant to the district court's supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and Rule14(a)"). Here, the court has original jurisdiction over the claims between Plaintiff and Defendant Stoltz. The Third-Party Complaint raises a claim for defense and indemnification pursuant to a contract, which shares a common nucleus of operative fact with Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Stoltz. Thus, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the third party complaint. Northwestern Ohio Admrs, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc., 270 F.3d 1018 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that the district court possessed supplemental jurisdiction over a third party claim for indemnification); Nussbaum v. Tech. Int'l Supply Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139225 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 28, 2012) (recommending the court exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a third party claim for indemnification), adopted by 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139230 (Sept. 26, 2012). Judge Pamela A. Barker on 10/8/2026. (P,K)
Case Management Conference
Minutes of proceedings[non-document] before Judge Pamela A. Barker. Case Management Conference held by telephone on 10/8/2026. Participating on behalf of Plaintiff were Attorneys Jeffrey S. Dunlap and Ryan W. Gillespie, participating on behalf of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff were Attorneys Michael P. Jones and Morgan McGreevy and participating on behalf of Third-Party Defendant were Attorneys Robert J. Dubyak and Michael R. Hamed. The Court raised with counsel the fact that Third-Party Defendant is a limited liability company but the Court does not know the membership of its members and/or submembers. Counsel for Third-Party Defendant was ordered to file a notice identifying members of Third-Party Defendant and any sub-members to allow the Court to determine if it has diversity jurisdiction by October 15, 2027. Separate CMC Order to issue. Time: 27 minutes. (P,K)
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.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.