Angelo v. NVR Inc. et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/12/2019. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RONALD ANGELO , SR. ,
Plaintiff,
: Civil Action No. 18-523-RGA

V.

NVR, INC. et al. ,
Defendants.

Ronald Angelo , Sr., Townsend , Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.
Scott G. Wilcox, Esquire , Whiteford Taylor Preston , LLC , Wilmington , Delaware.
Counsel for Defendant NVR, Inc.
Scott Thomas Earle , Esquire , Zarwin, Baum , DeVito , Kaplan , Schaer, Toddy, P.C .,
Wilmington , Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Commonwealth Land Title Insurance
Company.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ll,,

2019
March
Wilmington , Delaware

Plaintiff Ronald Angelo, Sr. ("Plaintiff'), filed this action on April 6, 2018. (D .I. 1).
He appears pro se and has paid the filing fee . Before the Court are several motions
filed by the parties including a motion to amend the complaint, motions to dismiss,
motions for summary judgment, and motions for conflict of interest. (D .I. 5, 7, 9, 10, 14,
22 , 26 , 29 , 31 ). Briefing is complete.

I.

BACKGROUND

This action concerns property located at 611 Southerness Drive in Townsend ,
Delaware, a September 6, 2000 Maintenance Declaration Odessa National
Maintenance Corporation ("Maintenance Declaration") made by Kathryn A. Copper,
Atkinson Farm , Inc. , and James R. Atkinson (as the Legal Owners) and Odessa
National Corp. (with all parties referred to collectively as Declarant) recorded on
September 6, 2000 (D .I. 1-1 at 13-22), and a Master Declaration of Covenants and
Restrictions for Odessa National Golf Club and Residential Community ("DOC"),
recorded on August 5, 2005 (D.I. 1 at 4; 0 .1. 1-1 at 5) . The DOC is made by Odessa
National Development Company (as the Developer) , and Fieldsboro Development, LLC ;
Ravenglass, LLC ; Camerton , LLC ; Robino-Wynnfield II , LLC ; and D.R. Horton , lnc.-New
Jersey (as the Original Builders) ,1 and the DOC states that Odessa National
Development Company owns the Southerness sub-community and that Odessa
National's intent is to develop a residential golf course . (Id.) .

1

The Court was only provided the first page of the DOC .

1

A deed dated August 21 , 2007 between Defendant NVR, Inc. ("NVR") and
Rosemary Angelo conveyed property located at 611 Southerness Drive in Townsend ,
Delaware, to Rosemary Angelo. (D .I. 1-1 at 2-3). The August 21 , 2007 deed is subject
to August 5, 2005 DOC and the September 6 , 2000 Maintenance Declaration . (Id. at 2).
The deed indicates that Odessa National Development Company, LLC conveyed the
property to NVR on May 25 , 2007 . (Id. at 2). The Complaint alleges that NVR is the
parent company of Ryan Homes, Inc. that sold the property at issue. (Id. at 3, 5) . It
also alleges that Defendant Commonwealth Land Title Company ("CLT") is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Fidelity National Title Insurance, and CLTis Plaintiff's title
insurance company. (Id.) .
An August 9, 2013 opinion letter from the New Castle County Executive's Office
states that the DOC was not executed in accordance with County law in that it seeks to
amend the original Maintenance Declaration in contravention of the terms of that
instrument and County law and is being used to improperly extract fees for the
maintenance of open space and common facilities (i.e ., the golf course) from the
homeowners, even though they will not receive ownership under the terms of the
instrument. (D.I. 1-1 at 23-31) .
An October 22 , 2013 clarification letter from the County Executive's Office states
that: (1) the DOC contains covenants and restrictions that constitute private deed
restrictions ; (2) courts consider these to be a form of private contract among
homeowners , the declarants , and other parties that are burdened or benefitted by them ;
and (3) the County is not a party to the DOC and has no authority to enforce its
2

covenants and restrictions that do not implicate County law. (Id. at 32). The letter was
copied to attorneys for the Golf Course Owner and Declarant and directed the Declarant
to amend the DOC to remove provisions that allow the Golf Course Owner to collect an
assessment for maintenance of the common facilities , adjacent open space and golf
course assessment areas as defined in the DOC . (Id. at 32-34) .
A deed dated January 20 , 2016 conveys the property from Rosemary Angelo to
Rosemary Angelo and Plaintiff as co-trustees under a revocable trust agreement date
November 13, 2015 . (D.I. 13-2 at 5-7). The January 20 , 2016 deed is subject to the
DOC and the Maintenance Declaration . (Id. at 6) A New Castle County Recorder of
Deeds data sheet indicates that on April 11, 2017 , Plaintiff and Rosemary Angelo
recorded a deed to Ronald Angelo , Sr., Trustee , Rosemary Angelo , Trustee , and the
Ronald Angelo , Sr. and Rosemary Angelo Revocable Trust. (D.I 1-1 at 54.) . The Court
was not provided the deed , and it is unclear if it is subject to the DOC and the
Maintenance Declaration or if the deed recorded on April 11 , 2017 is the same deed
that was executed on January 20 , 2016 .
Plaintiff alleges that CLT, as his title insurance company, is liable "for all recorded
documents including documents excluded except for documents declared void ." (Id. at
6) . Plaintiff alleges that NVR, as a mortgage company, had a fiduciary responsibility to
insure the deed it transferred to the buyer (i.e., Rosemary Angelo) was without error and
in compliance with county, state, and federal law. (Id. at 8) . Plaintiff alleges that at
settlement, Defendants did not inform him of all the violations of the recorded
documents and did not advise him of the excluded documents from coverage or of
3

invalid record plans and recorded instruments in his title insurance policy. (Id. at 5).
Plaintiff alleges "with the current violation of recordation , [his] property cannot be sold
with full disclosure ." (Id. at 6). Plaintiff seeks a full refund of the purchase price plus
improvements and expenses to move or a declaration that the recorded document is
void and for NVR or CLT to return the monies collected at settlement by NVR charged
as a golf course fee , plus interest.

(Id.at 6) .

The Complaint asserts federal jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. As noted
below, it does not appear that there is any valid federal claim . The prayer for relief
seeks a refund of the property's purchase price -- $495,000-- or $5,000 plus interest.
(0 .1. 1 at 6) . If the request for relief does not meet the diversity threshold , an issue that I
do not now decide, then there is no jurisdictional basis for this matter being in federal
court.
The Complaint raises : (1) two counts of New Castle County code violations; one
for land use and one for the recorder of deeds; (2) two violations of state law; one for
violating Title 9 of the Delaware Code and one for bank fraud ; and (3) two violations of
federal law; one for recordation and one for bank fraud . (Id. at 5) .

New Castle County Code . The Complaint appears to allege violations of
Chapter 40 of the New Castle County Code , Unified Development Code ("UDC"), §§

4

40.30.510 2 and 40.31.130 .3 The Complaint alleges that the Maintenance Declaration
states that any changes or additions must be approved by the New Castle County
Council ; that the DOC sought to expand the original maintenance declaration without
approval as required by USO§ 40.31.130 .G.; that the DOC does not conform to the
model declaration ; as a result, any maintenance obligations resulting from its execution
should be considered null and void and the homeowners should not be required to pay
any open space maintenance fees resulting from its execution ; and the DOC is
recorded illegally and is void . (Id. at 12-13).
Delaware Law. The Complaint alleges the DOC is not "duly executed or
recorded " on property located at 611 Southerness Drive, Townsend , Delaware . (Id. at
4) . It is alleged that the DOC does not meet 9 Del. C. § 9605, because the document
does not have "prepared by" and "return address" on the first page , which was done to
defraud the residents , and the preparer knew the DOC would not pass County Council
which is why it was not submitted through proper channels. (Id. at 9-10) . The
Complaint alleges that because the DOC did not conform to the rules of recordation it
should not have been accepted by the Recorder of Deeds. (Id. at 10-11). The
Complaint alleges that as long as the DOC is attached to the deed , the property cannot

2

UDC 40.30.510 .8 . provides that any plan received by the Recorder of Deeds for filing
or recording without the approval of the Department and Council endorsed shall be null
and void and without effect and upon application be expunged from the records of the
Recorder of Deeds. (Id. at 15).
3

UDC § 40.31 .130 sets forth the procedure for any amendment to a declaration of
restrictions to which New Castle County is either a party to or a beneficiary of the
covenants and deed restriction changes . (/d. at 14).
5

be sold and no loans can be made with the property as collateral. (Id. at 11 ). Plaintiff
alleges that paragraph 8.7 of the DOC states that the $5 ,000 golf course fee is a fee
charged to the builder and not the buyer and fraud was perpetrated by the builder when
the fee was paid by the buyer and collected at settlement. 4 (Id. at 20) .

Federal Law. The Complaint alleges that if the property is insured by a United
States government agency then the government is the victim of fraud in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1021 and the bank was defrauded in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 1344. (Id. at 11 ).
The Complaint alleges that the bank was defrauded when it loaned money on the
property based on an appraisal without full knowledge of the violations . (/d.) .

II.

MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Both NVR and CLT move to dismiss the Complaint. NVR moves to dismiss on

the grounds that: (1) Plaintiff lacks standing to assert his claims relating to the DOC
and Maintenance Declaration ; (2) the issues are moot; (3) the Complaint fails to state
claims for violations of state law, federal law, or the New Castle County Code; and (4)
NVR had no part in drafting or attaching the DOC or maintenance declaration to the
deed . (D .I. 8) . CLT moves for a more definite statement and dismissal of the Complaint
on the grounds that: (1) the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim for rel ief; (2) the
Complaint fails to state a cognizable state law claim ; (3) Plaintiff does not have standing
to bring federal crim inal charges; (3) private causes of action are not permitted under
federal criminal statutes; and (4) Plaintiff failed to plead that he is an insured under any

4

The settlement statement indicates that at closing , a $5 ,000 golf course fee was paid
to Odessa National Golf Course from the Sellers's funds at settlement. (D .I. 1-1 at 39).
6

policy with CL Tor that CL T failed to honor any title commitment owed to Plaintiff. (D.I.
11 ).
A.

Legal Standards

In reviewing a motion filed under Fed . R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court must accept
all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most favorable to
plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 , 94 (2007) . Because Plaintiff proceeds
prose, his pleading is liberally construed and his complaint, "however inartfully pleaded ,

must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."
Erickson , 551 U.S. at 94 . A court may consider the pleadings, public record , orders ,

exhibits attached to the complaint, and documents incorporated into the complaint by
reference. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makar Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 , 322 (2007) . A
Rule 12(b)(6) motion maybe granted only if, accepting the well-pleaded allegations in
the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the complainant, a
court concludes that those allegations "could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief."
Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 , 558 (2007) .

"Though 'detailed factual allegations' are not required , a complaint must do more
than simply provide 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of
a cause of action ."' Davis v. Abington Mem 'I Hosp ., 765 F.3d 236 , 241 (3d Cir. 2014)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) . I am "not required to credit bald assertions or legal
conclusions improperly alleged in the complaint. " In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc. Sec.
Litig., 311 F.3d 198, 216 (3d Cir. 2002) . A complaint may not be dismissed , however,

7

"for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted ." Johnson v.

City of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346 , 346 (2014) .
A complainant must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has "substantive
plausibility." Id. at 347. That plausibility must be found on the face of the complaint.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 678 (2009) . "A claim has facial plausibility when the
[complainant] pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the [accused] is liable for the misconduct alleged ." Id. Deciding whether
a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense ." Id. at 679.
"In deciding motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), courts generally
consider only the allegations in the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint,
matters of public record , and documents that form the basis of a claim. A document
forms the basis of a claim if the document is 'integral to or explicitly relied upon in the
complaint. ' The purpose of this rule is to avoid the situation where a plaintiff with a
legally deficient claim that is based on a particular document can avoid dismissal of that
claim by failing to attach the relied upon document. Further, considering such a
document is not unfair to a plaintiff because , by relying on the document, the plaintiff is
on notice that the document will be considered ." Lum v. Bank of Am., 361 F.3d 217 n.3
(3d Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted) ; see also In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec.

Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997).

8

B.

Discussion
1.

Standing

The Court turns first to the issue of standing . NVR moves to dismiss the
Complaint for Plaintiff's lack of standing on the grounds that he has not sustained any
harm as a result of the DOC and Maintenance Declaration to the original deed . (D.I. 8
at 11-12). NVR relies upon attachments to the Complaint to argue that the original
deed , through which the DOC and Maintenance Declaration were imposed , was
between it and Rosemary Angelo -- not Plaintiff. While Plaintiff alleges that CLT is his
title insurance company, there are no allegations that CLT failed to honor any title
commitment owed to Plaintiff.
In Plaintiff's opposition , he indicates that he has a power of attorney for his wife
who is disabled and "this is [his] right to protect our interest. " (D .I. 13 at 2) . Attached to
his opposition is a copy of the power of attorney dated November 13, 2015 , and a copy
of a deed dated January 20 , 2016 between Rosemary Angelo and Rosemary Angelo
and Ronald Angelo , Sr. as co-trustees under a revocable trust agreement dated
November 13, 2015 . (D .I. 13-2 at 1-7).
"Article Ill of the Constitution restricts the 'judicial power' of the United States to
the resolution of cases and controversies . Subsumed within this restriction is the
requirement that a litigant have standing to challenge the action sought to be
adjudicated in the lawsuit. " Taliaferro v. Darby Twp . Zoning Bd. , 458 F.3d 181, 188 (3d
Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted) . The "core component" of the requirement that a
litigant have standing to invoke the authority of a federal court "is an essential and
9

unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article Ill. " OaimlerChrysler
Corp. v. Cuna , 547 U.S. 332 , 343 (2006). To assert standing , "a plaintiff must show (a)

an 'injury in fact,' i.e. , an actual or imminently threatened injury that is 'concrete and
particularized ' to the plaintiff; (2) causation , i.e ., traceability of the injury to the actions of
the defendant; and (3) redressability of the injury by a favorable decision by the Court. "
NCAA v. Governor of N.J. , 730 F.3d 208 , 217-18 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Summers v.
Earth Island Inst. , 555 U.S. 488 , 493 (2009)) . A plaintiff does not have standing to

challenge a defendant's actions unless the plaintiff can "show that he personally has
suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of
the defendant. " Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91 , 117 (1979).
The allegations concern harm suffered by Rosemary Angelo , not Plaintiff.
Rosemary Angelo , however is not a party to this case and , therefore , Plaintiff lacks
stand ing to raise claims on her behalf. See Township of Lyndhurst, N.J. v.
Priceline.com, Inc., 657 F.3d 148, 154 (3d Cir. 2011) . In addition , although Plaintiff has

power of attorney for his spouse , this does not suffice to establish standing because,
although "power of attorney may [confer] certain decision-making rights under state
law," it generally does not allow a person to litigate prose on behalf of another in federal
court. In re Radogna, 331 F. App 'x 962 , 964 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Simon v. Hartford
Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661 , 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008)) . Federal courts "have routinely adhered

to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others
in a representative capacity." Simon , 546 F.3d at 664-65 (collecting cases) ; see also
Liggon-Redding v. Willingboro Twp. , 351 F. App 'x 674 , 679 (3d Cir. 2009) (even though

10

wife had power of attorney for husband , she did not have standing to bring a claim on
his behalf in a representative capacity on a prose basis) . Moreover, Plaintiff is not an
attorney and may not act as an attorney for his spouse ; he may only represent himself
in this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; see also Osei-Afriye v. Medical Coll. of

Pennsylvania , 937 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1991) (non-lawyer appearing prose may not act as
attorney for his children) .
Without belaboring the point, Plaintiff lacks standing to assert his claims for
damages relating to the DOC and Maintenance Declaration at the time of purchase
because Rosemary Angelo , and not Plaintiff, purchased and owned the property at the
time the DOC and Maintenance Declaration were attached to the deed. The alleged
harm is only suffered by Rosemary Angelo and not Plaintiff.
NVR's position that Plaintiff does not have standing does not, however, take into
consideration the fact that the deed restrictions may run with the land . To the extent
that they do , Plaintiff may have standing as one of the trustees for the Trust that is the
current owner of the property. And , while NVR posits that the current deed no longer
contains a reference to the DOC or Maintenance Declaration , the Court was not
provided with a copy of the current deed and , therefore , is not in a position to make this
determination .5
As pied , the Complaint does not properly allege that Plaintiff has standing to
proceed with the claims raised . Therefore , the Court will grant the motions to dismiss.

5

NVR referred to Exhibit 1 to support its position , but Exhibit is not attached to NVR's
opening brief in support of its motion to dismiss. (See D. I. at 8 n.1).
11

2.

Ripeness

It does not appear that Plaintiffs claims are ripe . There are no facts alleged that
there was an attempt to sell the property and that problems arose due to the DOC and
Maintenance Declaration . Nor are there allegations Plaintiff suffered a loss that
triggered CLT's duty to defend under the title insurance policy. It is pure conjecture that
"the home cannot be sold and no loans can be made with the property as collateral. "
(D .1.1 at5).
"The existence of a case and controversy is a prerequisite to all federal actions ,
including those for declaratory or injunctive relief. " Peach/um v. City of York, 333 F.3d
429 , 433 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Presbytery of N.J. of Orthodox Presbyterian Church v.

Florio , 40 F.3d 1454, 1462 (3d Cir. 1994)). Ripeness is a component of the case or
controversy requirement, and determines "whether a party has brought an action
prematurely, and counsels abstention until such time as a dispute is sufficiently
concrete to satisfy the constitutional and prudential requirements of the doctrine. "

Pittsburgh Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. International Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local
Union No. 66, 580 F.3d 185, 190 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Peach/um , 333 F.3d at 433).
As pied , the disputes are not sufficiently concrete to satisfy the requirements of
ripeness .
3.

Failure to State a Claim

In the alternative , even were the Court to determine that Plaintiff has standing
and that the issues are ripe , the Complaint fails to state claims upon which relief may be

12

granted . The Complaint alleges claims under the New Castle County Code, Delaware
statutes , and federal statutes. The Complaint fails to state claims under any theory.
New Castle County Code. The Complaint appears to allege violations of UDC
40 .31 .130 that applies to amendments of deed restrictions and 40.30.510 that applies to
the recording of unapproved plans . With regard to amendments of deed restrictions , it
does not appear that Plaintiff has sued the proper parties . In his response Plaintiff
acknowledges that NVR had no involvement in the DOC . Plaintiff states that he is "not
stating that NVR authorized or filed the 2005 DOC originally or illegally." (D.I. 13 at 4).
Plaintiff is "only asking for return of funds that were acquired through or by the 2005
DOC" and that it "be declared 'void ab initio' so that [Plaintiff] can sell the home without
the possibility of a civil action against [his] heirs. (Id.). Plaintiff seeks the golf course
fee taken at settlement. (Id.).

Nor are there allegations of CLT's involvement in the

DOC.
Section 40.30.510 indicates that any cause of action regarding the recording of
unapproved plans lies with the Department of Land Use or the New Castle County
Council. See§ 40 .30.51 0(b) ("Any plan received by the Recorder of Deeds for filing or
recording without the approval of the Department and County Council endorsed thereon
shall be null and void and without legal effect and shall , upon application of the
Department or County Council to the Superior Court, be expunged from the records of
the Recorder of Deeds."). The statute states that the remedy lies upon application of
the Land Use Department of the New Caste County Council , not with the seller of

13

property or a title insurance company. The Complaint fails to state claims under either
section of the UDC.

State Law. Plaintiff alleges violations of 9 Del. C. § 9605 which provides the
Delaware Record of Deeds with filing requirements for the recordation of instruments .
See 9 Del. C. § 6506 (recordation of instruments) . The statute does not provide for a
private cause of action . If there is a filing error or mistake or a question about the
validity of a filing of an instrument, an action may be commenced under various theories
(e.g., a claim to quiet title) , with the result that a Delaware Court may enter an order for
the Recorder of Deeds to make the necessary entries to correct the error or deficiency.
See, e.g., Tunnell v. Hastings , 1977 WL 176195 (Del. Ch . 1977); Leibowitz v. Hicks,
207 A.2d 371 (Del. Ch . 1965) (action commenced against the Recorder of Deeds to
correct a mistake) . To the extent that Plaintiff raises claims pursuant to 18 Del. C. §
2407 for insurance fraud , the claim fails as this Delaware statute does not provide a
private right of action . See Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. v. Hentz , 2008 WL 4453223 , at *4
(M .D. Pa . 2008) (Del. Code . Ann . 18 § 2407 does not provide a private right of action) .
The Complaint fails to state claims under Delaware law.

Federal Law. To the extent that Plaintiff raises claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 1021 (false certification of title records) and 18 U.S.C . § 1344 (bank fraud) , neither
criminal statue creates a private right of action . See Campbell v. M&T Bank, 2018 WL
401523 , at *12 (W.D. Pa . 2018) (no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1344);
Gross v. Cormack, 2013 WL 6624051 , at *2 (D.N .J. 2013) (no private cause of action
under 18 U.S.C . § 1021 ). In addition , to the extent Plaintiff seeks to impose criminal
14

liability upon Defendants pursuant to the criminal statutes upon which he relies , he lacks
standing to proceed . See Allen v. Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts, 270 F.
App'x 149,150 (3d Cir. 2008) ; see United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531 , 1539 (3d
Cir. 1996) ("[T]he United States Attorney is responsible for the prosecution of all criminal
cases within his or her district. ". The decision of whether to prosecute , and what
criminal charges to bring , generally rests with the prosecutor. See United States v.
Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979) . The Complaint fails to state claims under the
federal criminal statutes .
Under any theory, the Complaint fails to state claims upon which relief may be
granted. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendants' motions to dismiss.
Ill.

LEAVE TO AMEND
When Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 6, 2018 , he did not include a jury

demand . (D .I. 1). On May 30 , 2018 , Plaintiff filed a motion to amend to include a jury
demand. (D.I. 5). Inasmuch as I am dismissing the entire complaint, and it seems
unlikely that Plaintiff can successfully amend his complaint to allege a viable cause of
action in federal court, I will dismiss his motion to amend (D .I. 5) as moot.
I will nevertheless give Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint since he is prose ,
and it is possible (though it seems unlikely) that he could raise potential claims on his
own behalf. Plaintiff is admonished that he may not raise claims on behalf of his wife or
represent her interests. She must either appear as a pro se co-plaintiff or an attorney
must represent her.

15

IV.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Plaintiff has filed several motions for conflict of interest. (D.I. 9, 22 , 29 , 31) .

Since I am dismissing the case , I will dismiss these motions as moot.
V.

MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and an amended motion for

summary judgment. (D .I. 14, 26) . The motions are premature and will be dismissed
without prejudice to renew.
VI.

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons , the Court will: (1) dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff's

motion to amend (D .I. 5) ; (2) grant Defendants' motions to dismiss (D .I. 7, 10) ; (3)
dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff's motions for conflict of interest (0 .1. 9, 22 , 29, 31 );
and (4) dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment (D.I. 14, 26).
Plaintiff will be given leave to file an amended complaint.
An appropriate order will be entered.

16