Copper Sands Homeowners Association, Inc. et al v. Copper Sands Realty, LLC et al

Filing 676

ORDER that the dispositive motions deadline is extended to 4/8/14, for the limited purpose of allowing Defendant to file a renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 674 Stipulation to Extend Time to File Proposed Joint Pretrial Order is GRANTED. Proposed Joint Pre-Trial Order due by 5/8/2014. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/18/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

COPPER SANDS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,
vs.

6
7

COPPER SANDS REALTY, LLC, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:10-cv-00510-GMN-NJK
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 654) issued by the Court

10
11

on January 16, 2014. Defendant Cannon Management Company (“Cannon”) filed a Response

12

(ECF No. 665) and Plaintiffs filed a Reply (ECF No. 666).
Also pending before the Court is the Stipulation for Extension of Time for Submission

13
14

of a Proposed Joint Pre-Trial Order. (ECF No. 674.)

15

I.

16
17
18

PENDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
In its Response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Cannon contends that the following

motions remain ripe for ruling:
1. The Motion for Summary Judgment by Application of Statutes of Repose and Limitation

19

Periods, originally filed on January 25, 2012, by Defendants, Copper Sands Realty,

20

LLC, Dario De Luca, Robert Colucci, Copper Sands Investors, LP, Renato De Luca

21

a/k/a Ray De Luca and Ray De Luca, Pacifica Enterprises Holdings, LP, Pacifica

22

Enterprises, Inc., Pacifica Enterprises LLC, Pacifica Real Estate Investments, Inc.,

23

Pacifica Real Estate Services, Inc., and Vimark RE Enterprises, LLC. (ECF No. 309.)

24

Cannon subsequently filed a Joinder to this Motion on February 1, 2012. (ECF No. 324.)

25

2. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Due to Disclosures and Disclaimers
originally filed on January 25, 2012, by Defendants, Copper Sands Realty, LLC, Dario
Page 1 of 3

1

De Luca, Robert Colucci, Copper Sands Investors, LP, Renato De Luca a/k/a Ray De

2

Luca and Ray De Luca, Pacifica Enterprises Holdings, LP, Pacifica Enterprises, Inc.,

3

Pacifica Enterprises LLC, Pacifica Real Estate Investments, Inc., Pacifica Real Estate

4

Services, Inc., and Vimark RE Enterprises, LLC. (ECF No. 310.) Cannon subsequently

5

filed a Joinder to this Motion on February 1, 2012. (ECF No. 326.)

6

3. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Due to Assumption of Risk originally filed

7

on January 25, 2012, by Defendants, Copper Sands Realty, LLC, Dario De Luca, Robert

8

Colucci, Copper Sands Investors, LP, Renato De Luca a/k/a Ray De Luca and Ray De

9

Luca, Pacifica Enterprises Holdings, LP, Pacifica Enterprises, Inc., Pacifica Enterprises

10

LLC, Pacifica Real Estate Investments, Inc., Pacifica Real Estate Services, Inc., and

11

Vimark RE Enterprises, LLC. (ECF No. 313.) Cannon subsequently filed a Joinder to

12

this Motion on February 1, 2012. (ECF No. 327.)

13

4. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Due Lack of Evidence of Damages and

14

Causation originally filed on January 25, 2012, by Defendants, Copper Sands Realty,

15

LLC, Dario De Luca, Robert Colucci, Copper Sands Investors, LP, Renato De Luca

16

a/k/a Ray De Luca and Ray De Luca, Pacifica Enterprises Holdings, LP, Pacifica

17

Enterprises, Inc., Pacifica Enterprises LLC, Pacifica Real Estate Investments, Inc.,

18

Pacifica Real Estate Services, Inc., and Vimark RE Enterprises, LLC. (ECF No. 312.)

19

Cannon subsequently filed a Joinder to this Motion on February 1, 2012. (ECF No. 325.)

20

The Court agrees that Cannon has preserved the issues presented in these Motions for

21

Summary Judgment. However, rather than revive motions that were filed more than two years

22

ago by defendants that have long been dismissed from this action, the Court will extend the

23

dispositive motions deadline to Tuesday, April 8, 2014, for the limited purpose of allowing

24

Cannon to file a renewed motion for summary judgment that complies with both Local Rule 7-

25

Page 2 of 3

1

4 and Local Rule 56-1.1 If Cannon elects to file such a Motion for Summary Judgment,

2

Plaintiffs’ Response shall be due on Tuesday, April 29, 2014. See D. Nev. R. LR 7-2(e).

3

Cannon’s Reply, if any, shall be due on Tuesday, May 13, 2014. See id.

4

II.

5

STIPULATION TO EXTEND JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER DEADLINE
As discussed above, the Court is extending the dispositive motions deadline.

6

Accordingly, the Court grants the parties’ joint request to extend the deadline to file Proposed

7

Joint Pre-Trial Order. (See Stipulation, ECF No. 674.) Accordingly, for the reasons discussed

8

in this Order, and for the reasons that the parties articulate in their Stipulation, (ECF No. 674),

9

the Court vacates the March 17, 2014 deadline. The deadline to file the Proposed Joint Pre-

10

Trial Order shall be set 30 days following the Court’s disposition of any motion for summary

11

judgment that Cannon files on or before Tuesday, April 8, 2014. If no such motion for

12

summary judgment is filed, the parties’ Proposed Joint Pre-Trial Order shall be due on

13

Thursday, May 8, 2014.

14

III.

CONCLUSION

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the dispositive motions deadline is extended to

16

Tuesday, April 8, 2014, for the limited purpose of allowing Defendant to file a renewed Motion

17

for Summary Judgment.

18
19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Parties’ Stipulation to Extend Time for
Submission of a Proposed Joint Pre-Trial Order is GRANTED.
18
DATED this _____ day of March, 2014.

20
21

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25

1

The Court emphasizes that filing multiple motions for summary judgment to avoid the limitation on pages in
Local Rule 7-4 is improper and will not be permitted. The Court also notes that neither Local Rule 7-4 nor Local
Rule 56-1 permits a party to except from the page limit the required statement of facts.

Page 3 of 3