Reed et al. v. Swanson et al (Case Number: 5:2021cv11392)
Federal Lawsuit that has no connection to our firm Swanson Reed has been dismissed.
Case Name: Reed et al. v. Swanson et al.
Case Number: 5:2021cv11392
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Important Note:
This case has the names “Reed” and “Swanson” in the tile but has no connection to our firm, Swanson Reed and we are only reporting it here to show it has no connection to our firm. This case is concerning a complaint from a Luke Davison Reed. Luke Davison Reed has never been associated with the R&D tax credit advisory firm, Swanson Reed. Please note that Pinnacle Properties, LLC or any other persons or entities in this case have no connection to Swanson Reed either.
Case Summary
This case has no connection to our firm, Swanson Reed and we are only reporting it here to show it has no connection to our firm. This case is concerning a complaint from a Luke Davison Reed. Luke Davison Reed has never been associated with the R&D tax credit advisory firm, Swanson Reed. Please note that Pinnacle Properties, LLC or any other persons or entities in this case have no connection to Swanson Reed either.
A federal lawsuit filed by plaintiff Luke Davison Reed was dismissed after the court determined it lacked the proper authority, or subject matter jurisdiction, to hear the case. Reed’s complaint alleged a significant loss of personal property valued at over $1 million but ultimately failed to establish a valid legal basis for a federal court to preside over the dispute.
Key Parties
- Plaintiff: Luke Davison Reed
- Defendants: Pinnacle Properties, LLC; a property manager identified as “Smith”; and a bookkeeper identified as “Diane”.
Core Legal Issues and Court’s Reasoning
The central issue leading to the case’s dismissal was the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can typically only hear cases under two main conditions:
- Diversity Jurisdiction: The case involves a dispute between citizens of different states. In this lawsuit, the court found that all parties, including the plaintiff and all defendants, were residents of the state of Kentucky. This completely eliminated the possibility of diversity jurisdiction.
- Federal Question Jurisdiction: The lawsuit involves a claim arising under the U.S. Constitution or federal laws. While Reed’s complaint made a vague reference to the Sixth Amendment, the court found it irrelevant to the civil claims and concluded that the complaint did not present a valid legal claim under federal law.
The court also noted that the complaint itself was deficient, as it lacked specific factual allegations against the defendants. It only made a general claim that over $1 million in property had been “lost,” which did not meet the necessary legal standards for a formal complaint.
Outcome
Please not that this case has no connection to our firm, Swanson Reed and we are only reporting it here to demonstrate that it has no connection to our firm.
The defendants filed motions for summary judgment. After a review, a magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation, which the district judge adopted. Consequently, the case was dismissed.
The dismissal was based on procedural grounds (lack of jurisdiction) and was not a judgment on the actual merits of the property loss claim. The court indicated that the appropriate venue for such a dispute would be a state court in Kentucky, where all parties reside.
This case has no connection to our firm, Swanson Reed and we are only reporting it here to show it has no connection to our firm. This case is concerning a complaint from a Luke Davison Reed. Luke Davison Reed has never been associated with the R&D tax credit advisory firm, Swanson Reed. Please note that Pinnacle Properties, LLC or any other persons or entities in this case have no connection to Swanson Reed either.
