Engintec Corp v. Roderick Boutin, No. 09-3994 (6th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 12a0298n.06 No. 09-3994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Mar 16, 2012 LEONARD GREEN, Clerk ENGINTEC CORP., an Ohio Corp.; LISA G. HUFF; REGGIE D. HUFF; DAVID A. BRYS; FRANKLIN H. JOHNSON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RODERICK A. BOUTIN; VINCENT MARINO; ROBERT K. JACKSON; LUANN JACKSON; JOHN D. HALLSWORTH, JR.; L.B.LAND, INC., an Oregon Corp.; JACKSON FAMILY TRUST; JDH SERVICES, INC., an Oregon Corp.; CHRISTOPHER MILLER; MATTHEW K. NAPIER; ROBERT W. HARRIS; MARK J. ENDRE; JOHN/JANE DOES, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO OPINION Before: GILMAN, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges. JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Engintec Corp., Reggie Huff, Lisa Huff, Franklin Johnson, and David Brys (collectively Engintec ) appeal from a district court order dismissing their complaint against various Defendants. The district court dismissed seven of the thirteen Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed Engintec s entire complaint with prejudice for violating Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and for acting in bad faith. Engintec appeals both holdings. No. 09-3994 Engintec Corp., et al. v. Boutin, et al. After reviewing the record, the parties briefs, and the applicable law, and hearing oral argument, this Court determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court s judgment dismissing Engintec s complaint with prejudice for the reasons stated in Judge Lioi s July 27, 2009 Memorandum Opinion, with the following qualification: The district court s analysis of Rules 8(a) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is applicable to Engintec s entire complaint, as it relates to all claims and all Defendants, and we find this analysis dispositive. Therefore, we adopt the district court s summation of the facts and procedure in Section I of its opinion and its analysis of Rules 8 and 41 in Section II.C and affirm dismissal of Engintec s entire complaint with prejudice. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
