Engintec Corp., an Ohio Corp. v. Roderick A. Boutin

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0298n.06
No. 09-3994
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ENGINTEC CORP., an Ohio Corp.; LISA G. HUFF;
REGGIE D. HUFF; DAVID A. BRYS; FRANKLIN H.
JOHNSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
RODERICK A. BOUTIN; VINCENT MARINO;
ROBERT K. JACKSON; LUANN JACKSON; JOHN D.
HALLSWORTH, JR.; L.B.LAND, INC., an Oregon
Corp.; JACKSON FAMILY TRUST; JDH SERVICES,
INC., an Oregon Corp.; CHRISTOPHER MILLER;
MATTHEW K. NAPIER; ROBERT W. HARRIS;
MARK J. ENDRE; JOHN/JANE DOES,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
OPINION
Before: GILMAN, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Engintec Corp., Reggie Huff, Lisa Huff,
Franklin Johnson, and David Brys (collectively “Engintec”) appeal from a district court order
dismissing their complaint against various Defendants. The district court dismissed seven of the
thirteen Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed Engintec’s entire complaint with
prejudice for violating Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and for acting in bad faith.
Engintec appeals both holdings.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 09-3994
Engintec Corp., et al. v. Boutin, et al.
After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, and hearing oral
argument, this Court determines that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion.
Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment dismissing Engintec’s complaint with
prejudice for the reasons stated in Judge Lioi’s July 27, 2009 Memorandum Opinion, with the
following qualification:
The district court’s analysis of Rules 8(a) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
is applicable to Engintec’s entire complaint, as it relates to all claims and all Defendants, and we find
this analysis dispositive. Therefore, we adopt the district court’s summation of the facts and
procedure in Section I of its opinion and its analysis of Rules 8 and 41 in Section II.C and affirm
dismissal of Engintec’s entire complaint with prejudice.
2

-- 2 of 2 --