Gamestreamer, Inc. v. Roberts et al

Filing 68

ORDER ATTACHED denying 56 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard A. Lazzara on 8/18/2010. (CCB)

Gamestreamer, Inc. v. Roberts et al

Doc. 68

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT M I D D L E DISTRICT OF FLORIDA T A M P A DIVISION

G A M E S T R E A M E R , INC., P la in tif f , v. T IM O T H Y M. ROBERTS, TERRANCE F . TAYLOR, and PLATFORMZ, INC., D e f e n d a n ts. / C A S E NO: 8:10-cv-1201-T-26EAJ

ORDER B e f o re the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment with attachments (D k t. 56) and Plaintiff's Response and Declaration with attachments. (Dkts. 64 & 65). After careful consideration of the submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that the m o tio n should be denied. D e f e n d a n ts seek summary judgment, or in the alternative a dismissal, of Plaintiff's c o m p la in t. As Plaintiff urges, Defendants have not yet filed an answer to the complaint, a n d as such, have not set forth any defenses to the Plaintiff's claims. Defendants base th e ir motion on facts surrounding the usurious nature of a loan made by Mr. Westman, w h o was allegedly made the majority owner of Plaintiff Gamestreamer as a result of the u s u rio u s loans. This day Defendants filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, dismissing th e ir Third Party Complaint, which named Mr. Westman as a defendant, but not

Dockets.Justia.com

Gamestreamer.1 Thus, no claims are at issue at this time are capable of being resolved by s u m m a ry judgment. E v e n assuming the facts as asserted in the motion are true, there are genuine issues o f fact with respect to the usurious nature of the loans made by Mr. Westman and the e x is te n c e of any "corrupt intent." At the very least, Plaintiff has made a case for denying a n d continuing summary judgment based on incomplete discovery at this stage of the p ro c e e d in g s . See Barfield v. Brierton, 883 F.2d 923 (11th Cir. 1989) (discussing the basis o n which a summary judgment motion is premature). Hence, the motion is premature and m u s t be denied. It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants' Motion for S u m m a ry Judgment (Dkt. 56) is DENIED. D O N E AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 18, 2010.

s/Richard A. Lazzara RICHARD A. LAZZARA U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO:

C o u n s e l of Record

1

See dockets 63 & 66. -2 -