PT Pukuafu Indah et al v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission et al, No. 2:2009cv10943 - Document 77 (E.D. Mich. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 67 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Patrick J Duggan. (MOre)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
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 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 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 3
]]>
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.
