Parker v. Langemeier et al

Filing 31

ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants' 28 Motion to Dismiss. Defendants' motion to dismiss the fraudulent inducement claim against Mattox is GRANTED and that claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In all other respects defendants' 28 motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew as a motion for summary judgment at the close of discovery. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 04/24/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

STEVEN E. PARKER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LORAL LANGEMEIER, WILLIAM MATTOX, )
MANNA PROPERTIES, LLC, and AR
)
RESIDENTIAL RESTORATION, INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )

3:12-cv-00429-HDM-VPC
ORDER

17
Before the court is the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss
18
(#28) made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and
19
12(b)(6).

Plaintiff has opposed (#29), and defendants have replied

20
(#30).
21
In his first amended complaint filed on February 12, 2012,
22
plaintiff Steven Parker (“plaintiff”) asserts that defendants
23
failed to pay two promissory notes upon their maturity in 2008, one
24
made to defendant Manna Properties (“Manna”) and the other made to
25
defendant AR Residential Restoration, Inc. (“AR”).

Defendants

26
William Mattox (“Mattox”) and Loral Langemeier (“Langemeier”) are
27
alleged to be managers of Manna; Langemeier is additionally alleged
28
1

1

to be the president of AR.

2

action: (1) breach of contract as to the Manna note; (2) breach of

3

contract as to the AR note; and (3) fraudulent inducement.

4

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of fraudulent

5

inducement as insufficiently pled and all claims asserted against

6

the individual defendants on the basis that they are not personally

7

liable for payment of the notes.

The complaint asserts three causes of

8

In his opposition, plaintiff has agreed to withdraw his

9

fraudulent inducement claim as to defendant Mattox. (Pl. Opp’n 13

10

n.5).

11

fraudulent inducement claim against Mattox is GRANTED and that

12

claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

13

defendants’ motion to dismiss (#28) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to

14

renew as a motion for summary judgment at the close of discovery.

Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the

In all other respects

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: This 24th day of April, 2013.

17
18

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2