Mark Ledertoug, an individual v. BOULEVARD & TRUMBULL TOWING, INC., a Delaware corporation

We note that federal subject matter jurisdiction is premised on the parties’ diversity of1
citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Although defendants have not conceded that the amount-in-
controversy requirement is met, neither have they challenged the good-faith basis for plaintiff’s
allegation that it is.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0082n.06
No. 09-1065
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MARK LEDERTOUG, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOULEVARD & TRUMBULL TOWING, INC.,
a Delaware corporation; and OFFICIAL
TOWING, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
M E M O R A N D U M
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: MARTIN, ROGERS and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Mark Ledertoug appeals from the district court’s award of
summary judgment in favor of defendant towing companies. The action stems from the allegedly
wrongful removal, impoundment and eventual sale of Ledertoug’s tractor truck by defendants
Boulevard & Trumbull Towing, Inc., and Official Towing, Inc. for approximately $6000. The1
towing companies had acted at the request of Home Depot USA, Inc., on whose property in
Roseville, Michigan, the truck had been parked for over a year. Ledertoug insists that he had Home
Depot’s consent to park his truck on its property and that his truck could not therefore be lawfully

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 09-1065
Ledertoug v. Boulevard & Trumbull Towing, Inc.
Ledertoug’s complaint states claims against Home Depot as well. These claims were2
voluntarily dismissed pursuant to a negotiated settlement before summary judgment was granted to
the towing companies.
- 2 -
treated as an abandoned vehicle. Yet, as the district court observed in its summary judgment2
opinion, Ledertoug conceded that discovery had produced no evidence that the towing companies
had acted other than in compliance with Michigan law. Accordingly, there being no evidence of a
breach of duty owed to Ledertoug by the towing companies, the district court held there was no
genuine issue of material fact and awarded judgment to the defendants on Ledertoug’s claims for
statutory violation, negligence and conversion.
On appeal, Ledertoug has not raised any argument that is not fairly and adequately addressed
in the district court’s opinion. Although we review the district court’s ruling de novo, we find no
error. Accordingly, finding that a separate opinion would be duplicative and unnecessary, we hereby
AFFIRM the district court’s judgment on the basis of its opinion.

-- 2 of 2 --