Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Pebble Creek Plaza, LLC et al

Filing 77

ORDER Denying without prejudice 41 , 68 , 69 and 76 Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
Branch Banking and Trust Company,
4
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8
9

vs.
Pebble Creek Plaza, LLC; Yoel Iny; Noam
Schwartz; Yoel Iny, Trustee of the Y&T Iny
Family Trust dated June 8, 1994; Noam
Schwartz, Trustee of the Noam Schwartz Trust
dated August 19, 1999; and D.M.S.I., L.L.C.,
Defendants.

10
11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-01737-GMN-NJK
ORDER

Pending before the Court are four motions requesting summary judgment, filed by

13

Defendants Yoel Iny; Noam Schwartz; Pebble Creek Plaza, LLC (“Pebble Creek”); Yoel Iny,

14

Trustee of the Y&T Iny Family Trust dated June 8, 1994 (“Trustee Iny”); Noam Schwartz,

15

Trustee of the Noam Schwartz Trust dated August 19, 1999 (“Trustee Schwartz”); and

16

D.M.S.I., L.L.C. (“DMSI”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 41, 68, 69, 76.)

17

I.

18

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants in October 2012, alleging causes of

19

action arising out of a series of loan transactions originating with a loan from Colonial Bank,

20

N.A., to Defendant Pebble Creek, as Borrower, secured by commercial property in Arizona,

21

and for which Defendants Iny, Schwartz, Trustee Iny, Trustee Schwartz, and DMSI served as

22

Guarantors. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On May 23, 2013, Defendants filed a Second Amended

23

Answer and Counterclaim. (Second Am. Answer, Countercl., ECF No. 26.)

24

II.

25

DISCUSSION
Defendants have now filed four motions requesting the same relief – summary judgment

Page 1 of 2

1

in their favor, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Mot. Summ.

2

J., ECF No. 41; Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 68; Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 69; Mot. Summ. J., ECF

3

No. 76.)

4

Although the District of Nevada does require that a separate document must be filed for

5

each type of document or purpose (see Special Order 109, Electronic Filing Procedures for the

6

United States District Court for the District of Nevada, III.F.4. (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2006)), here

7

Defendants’ motions for summary judgment all request summary judgment in their favor

8

pursuant to Rule 56. (See Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 41; Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 68; Mot.

9

Summ. J., ECF No. 69; Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 76.) Defendants’ four motions for summary

10

judgment appear to be an inappropriate attempt to circumvent the page limitations of Local

11

Rule 7-4, which requires leave of the Court before any party may file a motion exceeding thirty

12

pages. See D. Nev. R. II.7-4. This conclusion is supported by Defendants’ attempts to

13

“incorporate by reference” its briefing for previous motions.

14

Defendants’ motions appear to be most properly brought as a single motion, and because

15

the Court finds no resulting unfair prejudice to any party, the Court finds that good cause exists

16

to deny Defendants’ motions for summary judgment without prejudice.

17

The Court will deny all four motions as inappropriately-filed, with leave to re-file in

18

compliance with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of Practice

19

for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, including Special Order 109.

20

III.

21

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 41),

22

Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68), Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 69),

23

and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 76) are DENIED without prejudice, as

24

described in this Order.

25

DATED this 19th day of November, 2013.

Page 2 of 2

_____________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge