Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rose v. Central USA Wireless, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

June 4, 2018

MICHAEL A. ROSE d/b/a ROSE GRADING, Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL USA WIRELESS, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER

          SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael A. Rose d/b/a Rose Grading's November 1, 2017 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (ECF No. 11.) Also before the Court is Defendant Central USA Wireless, LLC's November 6, 2017 Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Request for Oral Argument. (ECF No. 12.)

         For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Request for Oral Argument is DENIED.

         I. Background

         On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into three lease agreements (the “Leases”) for certain equipment. (Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 5.) Each of the Leases contains an arbitration clause requiring binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures. (Id. ¶ 6.)

         On July 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Arbitration Demand with the American Arbitration Association. (Id. ¶ 7.) William P. Alexander III was appointed the sole arbitrator (the “Arbitrator”). (Id. ¶ 8.) The arbitration was conducted in Memphis, Tennessee. (Id. ¶ 9.)

         The Arbitrator rendered an award in Plaintiff's favor on August 8, 2017. (Id.) More than thirty days after entry of the award, Defendant had not paid any amounts in satisfaction of the award. (Id. ¶ 10.)

         On September 13, 2017, Plaintiff filed its Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award under 9 U.S.C. § 9. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant filed its answer on October 31, 2017. (ECF No. 10.)

         Plaintiff filed his Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on November 1, 2017. (ECF No. 11.)

         Defendant filed its Motion to Vacate the Arbitration Award on November 6, 2017. (ECF No. 12.)

         Defendant responded to Plaintiff's motion on November 15, 2017. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff replied on November 30, 2017. (ECF No. 21.)

         Plaintiff responded to Defendant's motion on November 22, 2017. (ECF No. 17.) Defendant replied on November 29, 2017. (ECF No. 19.)[1]

         II. Jurisdiction & Choice of Law

         The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff is an individual resident of Shelby County, Tennessee. (Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a limited liability company organized in Ohio. (ECF No. 23.) “[L]imited liability companies ‘have the citizenship of each partner or member.'” V & M Star, LP v. Centimark Corp., 596 F.3d 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Delay v. Rosenthal Collins Grp., LLC, 585 F.3d 1003, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009)). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's sole member, Christopher Hildebrandt, is an Ohio citizen. (ECF No. 23 ¶ 7.) There is complete diversity. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).

         The complaint seeks “$96, 346.45 plus compound interest on that amount at the annual rate of 6% starting thirty (30) days after the date of the [Arbitration] Award which was September 7, 2017.” (Compl., ECF No. 1 at 3.)[2] The damages sought satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.