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.

Briks v. Yeager

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

February 19, 2019

James Briks, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Karl J. Yeager, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          LEO I. BRISBOIS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon the routine supervision of the cases that pend before the Court, pursuant to a general assignment made in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636.

         Plaintiffs James Briks and Jerome Briks (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs”), proceeding pro se, initiated the present case on January 2, 2019. (Compl. [Docket No. 1]). Plaintiffs named as Defendants Karl J. Yeager; “Meager & Greer, attorneys at law”; Sue M. Kirtz, and various John and Jane Does. (See, Id.). Plaintiffs assert that all parties are residents of Minnesota. (See, Id. at 2).

         In their Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that they previously retained Defendants “to engage in legal proceedings to prosecute a Civil Complaint in the State of Minnesota . . . .” (Id. at 3). Plaintiffs contend, however, that Defendants in this action improperly served the defendants in that state court action, and therefore, Plaintiffs suffered “a total los[e] of the entire situation . . . .” (Id. at 3-4).

         On the basis of those assertions, Plaintiffs purport to raise claims of (1) negligence, (2) breach of contract, and (3) breach of unjust enrichment. (Id. at 4-9). As relief, Plaintiffs seek “general damages in excess of $10, 000.00”; “special damages in excess of $10, 000.00”; “actual damages in excess of $10, 000.00”; “monetary or punitive damages against all Defendants . . . in a set amount of $75, 000, 000.00”; and “any other relief this Court sees fit.” (Id. at 10).

         On January 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Screening of Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).” [Docket No. 8]. Plaintiffs' Motion requested that their Complaint be “screened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).” (Id.).

         On January 8, 2019, the undersigned issued an Order, [Docket No. 10], denying Plaintiffs' “Motion for Screening of Complaint Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).” In that Order, the Court also explained that based on the record then presently before the Court Plaintiffs' Complaint failed to establish that subject matter jurisdiction exists in the present case. (Order [Docket No. 10]). “Although it appear[ed] evident to the Court that subject matter jurisdiction d[id] not exist in the present case, the Court [afforded] Plaintiffs an opportunity to explain why subject matter jurisdiction exists.” (Id.). The Court directed Plaintiffs to file a response as to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction by no later than February 8, 2019. (Id.). The Court warned Plaintiffs that if subject matter jurisdiction does not exist in the present case, then the present action must be dismissed. (Id.).

         Plaintiff caused a summons and a copy of the Complaint to be served on Defendants on January 14, 2018. (Summons Returned Executed [Docket No. 11]).

         On January 25, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a document entitled “Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Exists.” [Docket No. 12]. The document, however, does not address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. (See, Id.). Rather, in that document Plaintiffs discuss a request to amend their Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiff assert that they seek to add further claims for relief including a claim of negligence, breach of contract, “breach of unjust enrichment, ” violations of good-faith and fair-dealing, violations of procedural due process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id.). Plaintiffs fail to proffer any factual allegations in support of these claims; Plaintiffs merely list the claims. (Id.). Plaintiffs assert that these claims “give this Court both subject matter and personal jurisdiction in this case.” (Id.).

         On January 28, 2019, Defendants filed their first Motion to Dismiss. [Docket No. 15]. In their Motion, Defendants argue the present case should be dismissed because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint.

         On January 28, 2019, the Honorable Nancy E. Brasel referred all dispositive and non-dispositive motions in the present case to the undersigned. (Order [Docket No. 20]).

         On January 30, 2019, Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed their timely Amended Complaint. [Docket No. 24]. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is now the operative complaint in the present case. Factually, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is materially and substantially similar to their original Complaint. On the basis of the same general factual allegations, Plaintiffs, in their Amended Complaint, purport to raise claims of (1) negligence, (2) violation of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) “breach of unjust enrichment.” (Id. at 8-14).[1] As relief, Plaintiffs now seek “general damages in excess of $75, 000.00 per claim”; “punitive damages of $150, 000, 000”; and “attorney fees and costs and any other relief this Court see[s] fit.” (Id. at 14).

         On February 5, 2018, Defendants filed their second Motion to Dismiss. [Docket No. 28]. Defendants renew their argument that the present case should be dismissed because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims contained in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint. Oral arguments on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, [Docket No. 28], are scheduled to be heard before the undersigned on March 21, 2019. (Notice of Hearing [Docket No. 31]).

         On February 12, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Strick [sic] Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and Enter Default.” [Docket No. 35]. In their Motion, Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss were untimely, and therefore, according to Plaintiffs, Defendants' Motions to Dismiss must be stricken. (Id.). Further, Plaintiffs ...


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.