IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 8, 2006
ALEXANDER N. ASANOV, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
M. HAYES HUNT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 8th day of May, 2006, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 78), recommending the granting of defendants' motion (Doc. 68) for judgment on the fourth-amended complaint, and of the objections thereto (Doc. 79), and upon further consideration of plaintiffs' motions (Docs. 71, 73) to compel and for sanctions, and it appearing that the fourth-amended complaint (Doc. 44) sets forth claims against defendants who are located, and avers conduct which allegedly took place, out-of-state and not within this forum,*fn1 see Mellon Bank (E.) PSFS, N.A. v. DiVeronica Bros., Inc., 983 F.2d 551, 554 (3d Cir. 1993) ("[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of establishing either that the cause of action arose from the defendant's forum-related activities . . . or that the defendant has "continuous and systematic" contacts with the forum state . . . ."), but that affidavits appended to the fourth-amended complaint aver conduct that may be sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court,*fn2 see FED. R. CIV. P. 10(c) ("A copy of any written instrument which is an exhibit to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes."); ALA, Inc. v. CCAIR, Inc., 29 F.3d 855, 859 (3d Cir. 1993) ("When reviewing a complaint, a court should consider not only the allegations contained in the complaint itself but also the exhibits attached to it . . . ."), and it further appearing that plaintiffs' motions (Docs. 71, 73) to compel and for sanctions relate to the production of discovery material not relevant to claims over which this court could exercise jurisdiction, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 78) is ADOPTED as follows:
a. The motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 68) is CONSTRUED as a motion to dismiss and GRANTED with respect to claims relating to the alleged frivolous lawsuit instituted, and false statements submitted to immigration authorities, in Mississippi.
b. The motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 68) is otherwise DENIED.
2. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to file, on or before May 20, 2006, a fifth-amended complaint.
a. The fifth-amended complaint shall set forth with specificity the facts and legal theories supporting claims relating to defendants' alleged interference or attempted interference with plaintiffs' property located within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
b. The fifth-amended complaint shall not make reference to any other previously filed document in this case, and shall otherwise comply with all federal and local rules of civil procedure. See FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a), 10.
c. Plaintiffs shall not be permitted to file another complaint in this case absent leave of court. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a).
3. The motions (Docs. 71, 73) to compel and for sanctions are DENIED as moot.
4. The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge