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).

Download PDF
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

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?