Branch Banking and Trust Company v. Sossaman & Guadalupe Plaza, LLC et al
Filing
89
ORDER Denying without prejudice 40 , 64 , 70 , and 84 Motions for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
Branch Banking and Trust Company,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
Sossaman & Guadalupe 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.
)
)
12
Case No.: 2:12-cv-01775-GMN-PAL
ORDER
Pending before the Court are four motions requesting summary judgment, filed by
13
Defendants Yoel Iny; Noam Schwartz; Sossaman & Guadalupe Plaza, LLC (“Sossaman”);
14
Yoel Iny, Trustee of the Y&T Iny Family Trust dated June 8, 1994 (“Trustee Iny”); Noam
15
Schwartz, Trustee of the Noam Schwartz Trust dated August 19, 1999 (“Trustee Schwartz”);
16
and D.M.S.I., L.L.C. (“DMSI”) (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF Nos. 40, 64, 70, 84.)
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 Sossaman as Borrower, secured by commercial property in Arizona, and for
21
which Defendants Iny, Schwartz, Trustee Iny, Trustee Schwartz, and DMSI served as
22
Guarantors. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)
23
On October 24, 2013, the Court granted Defendants leave to file a Second Amended
24
Answer and Counterclaim, and Defendants did so on October 28, 2013. (Order, Oct. 24, 2013,
25
ECF No. 71; Second Am. Answer, Countercl., ECF No. 74.)
Page 1 of 3
1
II.
DISCUSSION
Defendants have now filed four motions requesting the same relief – summary judgment
2
3
in their favor, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Mot. Summ.
4
J., ECF No. 40; Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 64; Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 70; Mot. Summ. J., ECF
5
No. 84.)
6
Although the District of Nevada does require that a separate document must be filed for
7
each type of document or purpose (see Special Order 109, Electronic Filing Procedures for the
8
United States District Court for the District of Nevada, III.F.4. (D. Nev. Sept. 27, 2006)), here
9
Defendants’ motions for summary judgment all request summary judgment in their favor
10
pursuant to Rule 56. (See Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 40; Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 64; Mot.
11
Summ. J., ECF No. 70; Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 84.) Defendants’ four motions for summary
12
judgment appear to be an inappropriate attempt to circumvent the page limitations of Local
13
Rule 7-4, which requires leave of the Court before any party may file a motion exceeding thirty
14
pages. See D. Nev. R. II.7-4. This conclusion is supported by Defendants’ attempts to
15
“incorporate by reference” its briefing for previous motions.
16
Defendants’ motions appear to be most properly brought as a single motion, and because
17
the Court finds no resulting unfair prejudice to any party, the Court finds that good cause exists
18
to deny Defendants’ motions for summary judgment without prejudice.
19
The Court will deny all four motions as inappropriately-filed, with leave to re-file in
20
compliance with the applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules of Practice
21
for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, including Special Order 109.
22
III.
23
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 40),
24
Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 64), Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 70),
25
and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 84) are DENIED without prejudice, as
Page 2 of 3
1
2
described in this Order.
DATED this 19th day of November, 2013.
3
4
5
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3 of 3
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?