EPC Corporation et al v. Kreutzer et al

Filing 117

ORDER re: 105 , 108 , 113 and 116 motions, because of material factual disputes the motion of defendants for summary judgment is denied. Signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 9/10/2009.(rpmcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch Civil Action No. 08-cv-01463-RPM EPC Corporation, an Arizona corporation; DENNIS C. SHAW; Plaintiffs, v. JAMES G. KREUTZER, HERMOSA PARK, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; CHARLES SHAFER, II; MICHAEL MCQUINN; MICHAEL MCQUINN AS TRUSTEE FOR THE MICHAEL MCQUINN PROFIT SHARING PLAN; BARRY MASON; BRANDON ROFF; BRET MASON; DANIEL WANSTRATH; DIANE ORRELL-LOPEZ; DYLAN NORTON; JACKIE ONEY and TONY ONEY, husband and wife; JANET L. PETTIGREW AS TRUSTEE OF THE JANET L. PETTIGREW REVOCABLE TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2006; LESLIE R. FARRELL; LOIS CARPENTER; MATTHEW SPOWART; MCKOWN AND MCKOWN, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; MREI, LLC, an Alaskan limited liability company; R. KEN CARPENTER; ROBERT WALLACE; RONALD W. PETTIGREW AS TRUSTEE OF THE RONALD W. PETTIGREW REVOCABLE TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2006; ROYAL LILLGE; SULTANA INVESTMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Alaska limited partnership; THOMAS L. GRAMS; THOMAS A. ST. OURS; and WILLIAM PEASE FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Alaska limited partnership, Defendants. ____________________________________________________________________________ ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY THE GROUP OF 24 DEFENDANTS ____________________________________________________________________________ On June 26, 2009, all defendants except James G. Kreutzer and Hermosa Park, LLC, filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims against them

and for judgment against Dennis Shaw on their counterclaim. The plaintiffs responded with a motion seeking additional time to respond under Rule 56(f). The plaintiffs also filed a pleading designated as a reply in support of their Rule 56(f) motion which the defendants then moved to strike. Upon examining the pleadings and considering the statements made on May 28, 2009, at the conference with counsel regarding a scheduling order, the Court finds and concludes that the defendants' attempts to avoid litigation of this case by a motion for summary judgment before discovery, based on the asserted inability of the plaintiffs to support factually their claims in response to defendants' discovery requests should be denied. It is apparent that there are substantial questions concerning the role of the attorney for defendant James Kreutzer in the transactions giving rise to this case and the related case, Civil Action No. 09-cv-00940-RPM, and it also appearing that there are substantial questions of fact regarding the knowledge of defendants Charles Shafer and Michael McQuinn and the multiple financing arrangements that preceded the involvement of Dennis Shaw in this and the related real estate development projects, the motion for summary judgment is premature. It is therefore ORDERED that because of material factual disputes the motion of defendants for summary judgment is denied. Dated: September 10th, 2009 BY THE COURT: s/Richard P. Matsch _________________________________ Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

2