Kahama VI, LLC v. HJH, LLC et al

Filing 379

ORDER denying 365 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike/Disregard Responses of Defendant Howard S. Marks to Motion for Summary Judgment and to Strike/Disregard Appellant Brief. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 9/17/2014. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

KAHAMA VI, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:11-cv-2029-T-30TBM

HJH, LLC, et.al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Plaintiff's Motion to
Strike/Disregard Responses of Defendant Howard S. Marks to Motion for Summary
Judgment and to Strike/Disregard Appellant Brief (Dkt. #365).

Upon review and

consideration, it is the Court’s conclusion that the Motion should be denied.
Plaintiff, Kahama VI, LLC has one remaining count in its Third Amended
Complaint against Defendant Howard S. Marks for fraudulent transfer (Count VIII). Marks
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment regarding that claim (Dkt. #209). Nonetheless,
Marks also filed a response to Kahama’s Motion for Summary Judgment against HJH,
LLC, and its guarantors (the “Motion”) for Counts I, II, and III of the Third Amended
Complaint (Dkt. #359). Marks states that he responded to the Motion because Kahama
makes “improper implications, misstatements and allegations as to Marks.” Marks also
filed a separate document labeled “Objections” to the Motion based on Kahama’s request

for judicial notice (Dkt. # 360) and a copy of the Initial Appellate Brief in the separate but
related Quiet Title Action (Dkt. # 341).
Marks states that he filed the Initial Appellate Brief in response to Kahama’s claims
that the Quiet Title Action was dismissed in its Motion for Summary Judgment and other
pleadings. Therefore, the Court will construe the filing as being in support of his Response
in Opposition to the Motion. The Court also denies the request to strike Marks’ Response
in Opposition to the Motion. The cases upon which Plaintiff relies are distinguishable from
this case since they all involve one defendant responding to a summary judgment motion
filed by another defendant. As to the request to strike Marks’ Objections, the Court denies
that request and refers Plaintiff to its Order dated July 28, 2014, (Dkt. # 340).
On the basis of the foregoing, it is the Court’s conclusion that the Motion should be
denied. It is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike/Disregard
Responses of Defendant Howard S. Marks to Motion for Summary Judgment and to
Strike/Disregard Appellant Brief (Dkt. #365) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 17th day of September, 2014.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2011\11-cv-2029 m to strike 365.docx

2