Atkins Nuclear Secured, LLC v. Aptim Federal Services, LLC, No. 1:2018cv01112 - Document 69 (E.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER- It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Atkins Nuclear Secured, LLC's Objections to Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations [Doc. 601 be, and the same hereby are, OVERRULED;and it is further ORDERED that Defendant Aptim Federal Services, LLC's Partial Objections to Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations [Doc. 58) be, and the same hereby are, OVERRULED as moot; and it is further ORDERED that the findings of fact in the Magistrate Judge's Propo sed Findings of Fact and Recommendations [Doc. 56] be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Nuclear Secured, LLC's Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 45] ("the Motion for Sanctions") be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. Signed by District Judge Anthony J Trenga on 4/24/2019. (dest, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Atkins Nuclear Secured, LLC v. Aptim Federal Services, LLC Doc. 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTEN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division ATKINS NUCLEAR SECURED, LLC, Plaintif, Y. APTIM FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. l:18-cv-1112 (AJT/JFA) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Beore iling this action, Plaintif Atkins Nuclear Secured, LLC (''Atkins'') attempted to conirm with Defendant Aptim Federal Services, LLC ("Aptim") that complete diversity of citizenship existed as between them. In response to Atkins' inquiry, Aptim's in-house counsel told Atkins that Aptim had "no plans to object to subject matter jurisdiction in the Easten District of Virginia." Based on that response, Atkins then iled this breach of contract action on August 30,2018, invoking jurisdiction solely based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. §1332. Thereater, while preparing its answer to Atkins' amended complaint, Aptim's outside counsel, whom Aptim had retained ater the suit was iled, leaned that complete diversity did not exist because the sole member of a limited liability company that served as the sole member of Aptim, also a limited liability company, shared the same citizenship as a member of Atkins. also a limited liability company. Outside counsel immediately disclosed this inonnation to Atkins, ater which Aptim iled a motion to dismiss or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, to which Atkins consented. Atkins then moved or sanctions, see Plaintif Atkins Nuclear Secured, LLC's Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 45] ("the Motion or Sanctions"), in the onn of reasonable attoneys' fees and Dockets.Justia.com misrepresent any jurisdictional acts. Rather, it conveyed a position that was irrelevant to Atkins' jurisdictional inquiry and which Atkins knew was irrelevant by the content of its own inquiry. As to outside counsel's conduct, the Court likewise concludes that under either a subjective or objective good aith standard, there was no basis or sanctions. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that counsel had actual knowledge of their client's citizenship prior to November 15, 2018, when they discovered the citizenship issue. Indeed, outside counsel disclosed the issue to Plaintif upon discovery of it. Atkins claims that counsel had a duty to investigate and conirm the Court's jurisdiction beore iling a motion to dismiss or ailure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6), which, as it tuned out, the Court had no jurisdiction to consider. It cites no authority or this proposition and the Court has ound none. Rule 11, by its terms, does not impose such a duty, see Rule 11 (b ); and the Court does not read Rule 12(b) as imposing such a duty. 8 Aptim was not airmatively representing or conirming that the Court had jurisdiction. Aptim's motion to dismiss simply assumed the truth of Plaintiffs allegations,9 which included that the Court had jurisdiction. Any such duty of investigation is more directly implicated with answering the allegations of the Amended Complaint; and within that context counsel did, in act, investigate, and discover the jurisdictional acts destroying In Augusyniak Insurance Group, Inc. v. Astonish Results, l.P., the court considered whether a defense counsel's ailure to adequately investigate the jurisdictional acts petaining to his client beore answering a complaint was sanctionable, and determined that it was not. 2013 WL 998770 (D.R.I. Mar. 13, 2013). The court observed that it was "well-settled" that "the burden to establish the jurisdictional acts rests squarely on the party who invokes the cout's diversity jurisdiction." Id at *9. Accordingly, the court stated, Here, the Court inds that it was Plaintifs that ailed in their obligation to properly plead the actual oundation or diversity jurisdiction and then, or the duration of the entire period or which they now seek sanctions, ailed to attempt to buttress their inadequate jurisdictional pleading with the requisite jurisdictional acts. 8 /dat*l0. 9 Aptim's pre-iling response also provided some further basis or Aptim's counsel's assumption that the Cout had jurisdiction to consider the motion to dismiss, as the Plaintif alleged. 15 jurisdiction, which it immediately disclosed to Atkins. In any event, there is no evidence that either Aptim's in-house or outside counsel intentionally delayed or disrupted the litigation in failing to research Aptim·s corporate citizenship. For all the above reasons, sanctions are not warranted. JV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Atkins Nuclear Secured, LLCs Objections to Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations [Doc. 601 be, and the same hereby are, OVERRULED: and it is urther ORDERED that Defendant Aptim Federal Services, LLC's Partial Objections to Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations [Doc. 58) be, and the same hereby are, OVERRULED as moot; and it is further ORDERED that the findings of fact in the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendations [Doc. 56] be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintif 1uclear Secured, LLC's Motion for Sanctions [Doc. 45] ('·the Motion for Sanctions") be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. Alexandria, Virginia April 24, 2019 16
]]>
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.
