On Demand Direct Response, LLC et al v. McCart-Pollak

Filing 273

ORDER granting ECF No. #231 Motion to Strike and ECF No. #232 Joinder. All claims asserted against Jay Franco Parties and Spiral Toys as Third Party Defendants, along with all references of these parties as Third Party Defendants, are stricken from the TPAC. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/4/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

ON DEMAND DIRECT RESPONSE, LLC,
DISTRICT OF NEVADA AND ON
DEMAND DIRECT RESPONSE III, LLC,

11

Case No. 2:15-cv-01576-MMD-NJK
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

12
13

SHANA LEE MCCART-POLLAK d/b/a
LOL BUDDIES ENTERPRISES,

14

Defendants.

15
ALL RELATED ACTIONS
16
17

Before the Court is Jay Franco Parties’ Motion to Strike Portions of Third Party

18

Plaintiff’s Amended Third Party Complaint (ECF No. 231) to which Spiral Toys LLC and

19

Mark Meyers (collectively “Spiral Toys”) have joined (ECF No. 232). The Court has

20

reviewed Third Party Plaintiff Shana Lee McCart-Pollak’s (“Plaintiff”) response (ECF No.

21

237) and Jay Franco Parties’ reply (ECF No. 238).

22

In an Order issued on September 30, 2016, the Court dismissed claims against all

23

Third-Party Defendants, but granted Plaintiff leave to amend two claims for unjust

24

enrichment and fraud against Third Party Defendant Kevin Harrington. (ECF No. 191.)

25

Thus, claims against the following groups of Third-Party Defendants were dismissed and

26

judgment was entered in their favor: Jay Franco & Sons, Inc., Jay At Play International,

27

Ltd., Echo Factory, Inc., Hutton Miller, LLC, Digital Target Marketing, LLC (collectively

28

“Jay Franco Parties”); Spiral Toys LLC and Mark Meyers (collectively “Spiral Toys”). (Id.;

1

ECF No. 192.) The Court subsequently denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the

2

September 30, 2016, Order. (ECF No. 215.) Plaintiff was given leave to amend her two

3

claims against Harrington. (Id. at 7.) However, Plaintiff’s Third Party Amended Complaint

4

(“TPAC”) names Jay Franco Parties, among others, as third party defendants. (ECF No.

5

225 at 2-4; 24-28.)

6

Jay Franco Parties ask the Court to strike all allegations and claims against them

7

from the TPAC. (ECF No. 231.) Plaintiff responds that she asserts claims against Third

8

Party Defendants who have been dismissed to preserve her appellate rights.1 (ECF No.

9

237.) However, Plaintiff has not waived her right to appeal the Court’s dismissal of claims

10

against Jay Franco Parties and Spiral Toys and would not waive such right by amending

11

her complaint to assert two claims against Harrington. In fact, by failing to limit the claims

12

in her TPAC to claims for fraud and unjust enrichment against only Harrington, Plaintiff

13

has violated the Court’s Order granting her leave to amend.

14

It is therefore ordered that the Jay Franco Parties’ Motion to Strike Portions of Third

15

Party Plaintiff’s Amended Third Party Complaint (ECF No. 231) and Spiral Toys’ joinder

16

(ECF No. 232) are granted. All claims asserted against Jay Franco Parties and Spiral

17

Toys as Third Party Defendants, along with all references of these parties as Third Party

18

Defendants, are stricken from the TPAC. Specifically, the following paragraphs in the

19

TPAC will be stricken: 3-10, 80-81, 91, 96-98, 100-10, 155-157, 158-163, 164-176 and

20

177-182.

21
DATED THIS 4th day of August 2017.
22
23
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

1Plaintiff

cites to Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1997), but this
case is no longer good law. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F3d. 896, 928 (9th Cir.
2012).
2