S. Baker v. Formtek Metal Forming, Inc., No. 4:2009cv00054 - Document 89 (E.D. Mo. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Bramkos Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 86], is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed. (See Order for details.) Signed by Honorable Henry E. Autrey on 7/22/2010. (CBL)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
S. Baker v. Formtek Metal Forming, Inc. Doc. 89 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION STEPHEN BAKER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) FORMTEK METAL FORMING, INC., ) ) Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) BRAMKO TOOL AND ) ENGINEERING, INC., ) ) Third Party Defendant. ) No. 4:09CV54 HEA OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bramko Tool & Engineering, Inc. s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 86]. On July 21, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint joins Bramko as a party defendant by adding claims of strict products liability and negligence against it. In its Motion to Dismiss, Bramko correctly argues that the Court no longer has diversity jurisdiction since both Plaintiff and Bramko are citizens of the state of Missouri, and therefore this case must be dismissed. Owens Equipment & Erection Dockets.Justia.com Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 367 (1978). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Bramko s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 86], is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed. Dated this 22nd day of July, 2010. ________________________________ HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -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.
