Taddeo v. American

Filing 697

ORDER Denying as Moot 497 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Denying as Moot 565 Motion for Summary Judgment, Denying as Moot 566 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Denying as Moot 567 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Denying as Moot 569 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 10/20/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Taddeo v. American

Doc. 697

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 Currently before the Court is Defendants 250 E. Flamingo, Inc., Koval Flamingo Holdings, 17 LLC, Koval Flamingo Investors, LLC's Motion to Dismiss (#497). Plaintiffs filed a Response in 18 Opposition (#511), to which Defendants filed a Reply (#521). Also before the Court are Plaintiffs' 19 Motions for Summary Judgment and Partial Summary Judgment (##565, 566, 569) and Supplement 20 (#572). Plaintiffs filed Notices of Non-Response (##609, 610, and 611) in regard to said Motions, 21 however, no responsive pleadings were filed to these Motions. Also before the Court is Plaintiff 22 Snap Properties, LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#567). Plaintiffs filed a Notice of 23 Non-Response (#612) in regard to said Motion, however no responsive pleadings were filed to this 24 Motion. 25 26 v. AMERICAN INVSCO CORPORATION, et al., FRANK TADDEO, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:08-CV-01463-KJD-RJJ ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

On September 30, 2010, the Court issued an Order (#695) finding that Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (#350) was deficient on many grounds, and requiring Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint on or before October 30, 2010. Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint was ambiguous and overly broad, and failed to meet the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 9, and 10.1 A review of each of the Motions listed above demonstrates that each is based on the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint.2 Accordingly, all said Motions must be denied as moot, at this time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 250 E. Flamingo, Inc., Koval Flamingo Holdings, LLC, Koval Flamingo Investors, LLC's Motion to Dismiss (#497) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (##565, 566, 569) are DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Snap Properties, LLC's Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (#567) are DENIED as moot. DATED this 20th day of October, 2010

_____________________________ Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge

A s noted in the Court's Order of September 30, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (#312) on O c to b e r 15, 2009. On November 2, 2009, however, Plaintiffs filed an Errata to their Second Amended Complaint (#350) s ta tin g that there had been technical difficulties with their attempt at filing the original Second Amended Complaint. (See # 3 6 1 .) Plaintiff averred that a draft of their Second Amended Complaint was filed accidentally, and that the mistake was n o t noticed until November 2, 2009. For the purposes of this Motion, the Court refers to the Errata (#350) as the Second A m e n d e d Complaint, or Errata Second Amended Complaint. The Court notes that Motion (#497) was filed seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs' October 15, 2009, Second A m e n d e d Complaint, which was superseded by the Errata Second Amended Complaint (#350) filed on November 2, 2 0 0 9 . The Court applies Defendants' Motion to the latter in making its decision here, as the issues are the same for both d o c u m e n t s , and the Court's ruling applies equally to both.
2

1

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3