Wolding v. Clark

Filing 13

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT & ALLOWING SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by District Judge Patrick J Duggan. (MOre)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOHN WOLDING, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD CLARK, Defendant. ____________________________/ ORDER On February 12, 2010, Plaintiff John Wolding (`Wolding") filed this action against Defendant Richard Clark ("Clark"), his partner in various "nonstandard auto insurance" corporations. In his Complaint, Wolding alleges the following claims against Clark: (1) violation of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.; (2) "violation of fiduciary duties and oppression of minority shareholder by controlling shareholder", Mich. Comp. Laws Section 450.1489; (3) fraud; and (4) "injunctive relief, appointment of receiver, and accounting." Presently before the Court is Clark's motion to dismiss Counts Two, Three, and Four of Wolding's Complaint and to strike Wolding's jury demand with respect to Counts Two and Four, filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and (7) on April 16, 2010. Wolding filed a response to the motion on June 3, 2010, and the Court held a motion hearing on September 21, 2010. For the reasons set forth at the motion hearing, the motion is taken under advisement. Plaintiff John Wolding shall file an amended complaint consistent with the Case No. 10-10644 Honorable Patrick J. Duggan discussions at the motion hearing within seven (7) days of the date of the hearing. Defendant Richard Clark may file a supplemental motion to dismiss within ten (10) days of the filing of the amended complaint. SO ORDERED. DATE: September 22, 2010 Copies to: Michael J. Lebow, Esq. Sean M. Walsh, Esq. Paula Johnson-Bacon, Esq. s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?