Heldt et al v. American Invsco Corporation et al

Filing 202

ORDER that defendant Rebekah Desmets motions for summary judgment are GRANTED. Defendant Rebekah Desmet is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs' conversion claims against her. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 11/29/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM) Modified on 11/30/2017 (JM).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5

BRUCE COUTURIER and ELEANOR
COUTURIER,
Plaintiffs,

6
7
8

v.
AMERICAN INVSCO, et al.,
Defendants.

9
10
11

Case No. 2:12-cv-01104-APG-NJK
Consolidated (for discovery and trial) with
Case Nos.:
2:12-cv-01106-APG-NJK
2:12-cv-01107-APG-NJK
2:12-cv-01108-APG-NJK
2:12-cv-01111-APG-NJK
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
REBEKAH DESMET’S MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Rebekah Desmet moves for summary judgment, arguing that as an employee of

12

American Invsco Corp. and an agent of Koval Flamingo, LLC, she is entitled to judgment as a

13

matter of law for the same reasons those two defendants were granted judgment. Specifically,

14

Desmet contends she is entitled to the benefit of a release of claims signed by the plaintiffs.1 In

15

response, the plaintiffs do not dispute that Desmet is an American Invsco employee and a Koval

16

agent within the releases’ scope. Instead, they argue the releases are unenforceable.

17

I have already rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments about the releases being unenforceable.

18

ECF No. 222. I decline to reconsider that decision. I granted judgment in favor of defendants

19

American Invsco and Koval based on the releases. Id. The plaintiffs released Koval, American

20

Invsco, and their “respective affiliates, shareholders, members, directors, officers, employees and

21

agents . . . .” See, e.g., 197-2 at 4. As it is undisputed Desmet was American Invsco’s employee

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Desmet also claims she has already been dismissed from cases 2:12-cv-01106-APG-NJK and
2:12-cv-01111-APG-NJK based on the court’s March 2014 order. I am uncertain on what basis Desmet
believes she has been dismissed from those cases. The March 31, 2014 order denied the defendants’
motions to dismiss the conversion claims against Desmet. See Case No. 2:12-cv-01106-APG-NJK, ECF
No. 107 at 14-15. Nevertheless, because the plaintiffs do not respond to that argument, and because the
same reasoning on the merits applies, I grant summary judgment in Desmet’s favor in these cases as well.
Desmet is not a defendant in 2:12-cv-01107-APG-NJK.

1

and American Invsco was Koval’s agent, the plaintiffs also released their conversion claims

2

against Desmet. I therefore grant Desmet’s summary judgment motions.

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant Rebekah Desmet’s motions for summary

4

judgment (ECF No. 252 in 2:12-cv-01104-APG-NJK and ECF No. 205 in 2:12-cv-01108-

5

APG-NJK) are GRANTED. Defendant Rebekah Desmet is entitled to judgment as a matter of

6

law on the plaintiffs’ conversion claims against her in each of the following cases:

7

2:12-cv-01104-APG-NJK,

8

2:12-cv-1106-APG-NJK,

9

2:12-cv-01108-APG-NJK, and

10

2:12-cv-01111-APG-NJK.

11

DATED this 29th day of November, 2017.

12
13

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2