Whitworth Tool Holdings LLC and WT Special Holdings LLC, both Kentucky LLCs, sued Little Mountain Precision LLC and related Ohio entities over an asset purchase agreement dispute. The plaintiffs seek to recover manufacturing equipment and tools they claim defendants wrongfully retained after a business transaction. Michael Cavanaugh, described as an "authorized representative" of the plaintiffs, has submitted three different sworn affidavits with conflicting statements about his ownership stake in the companies.
Judge Barker expressed serious doubts about diversity jurisdiction after Cavanaugh initially swore he was a "member/owner" of both plaintiff companies, then later recanted and said he "inadvertently" made those statements. "The Court has significant concerns regarding Mr. Cavanaugh's contradictory affidavits," Barker wrote. Adding to the confusion, Cavanaugh claims to be a shareholder of MARL & Co., Inc., but the plaintiffs' corporate disclosure identifies Michael Kayman as that corporation's "sole owner." Most problematically for jurisdiction, Cavanaugh disclosed he is an Ohio citizen—the same state as all five defendants.
The case began March 23 when plaintiffs filed their complaint and immediately sought emergency relief through a temporary restraining order. Judge Barker previously denied the TRO motions without prejudice in March after finding the plaintiffs failed to adequately establish the citizenship of all LLC members and sub-members required for diversity jurisdiction. Despite the court's earlier warnings about jurisdictional deficiencies, Cavanaugh continued to assert member status in a second affidavit filed March 31.
Judge Barker scheduled the jurisdiction hearing for April 22 and ordered both Cavanaugh and Kayman to appear in person. The court also demanded sealed documentation by April 15 proving the ownership structures of all entities involved, warning that "affidavits alone will be insufficient." Until jurisdiction is resolved, Barker prohibited the parties from conducting expedited discovery or issuing third-party subpoenas, emphasizing that "this matter cannot proceed until the Court is fully satisfied that it has diversity jurisdiction."