Companion Property and Casualty Group v. Consolidated Agent Partners et al

Filing 64

ORDER - RPS and CAP defendants' motions to dismiss (# 14 , # 15 ) are DENIED AS MOOT; the motions to dismiss (# 48 , # 49 ) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renew as a motion for summary judgment at the close of discovery. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 5/28/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) Modified on 5/28/2013 for spelling (DRM).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

COMPANION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
GROUP,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CONSOLIDATED AGENCY PARTNERS, dba )
MENICUCCI INSURANCE ASSOCIATES, )
KAREN FAUST, HIGHPOINT RISK
)
SERVICES LLC, PINNACLE
)
UNDERWRITERS, INC., RISK
)
PLACEMENT SERVICES, INC. dba RISK )
PLACEMENT SERVICES, INSURANCE
)
BROKERS, JOAN VASCONES, SKY HIGH )
SPORTS, LLC, SKY HIGH SPORTS
)
ORANGE COUNTY OPERATIONS, LLC,
)
ROLLAND WEDDELL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )

3:12-cv-00595-HDM-VPC
ORDER

On December 26, 2012, defendants Risk Placement Services,

22

Gloria Lam, and Joan Vascones (collectively “the RPS defendants”)

23

filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims asserted against them

24

in this action (#14).

25

and Consolidated Agency Partners (collectively “the CAP

26

defendants”) filed a motion to dismiss (#15) four of the claims

27

plaintiff had asserted against them.

28

granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

On December 27, 2012, defendants Karen Faust

1

On March 13, 2013, the court
Plaintiff

1

filed its first amended complaint on March 27, 2013.

The amended

2

complaint supersedes plaintiff’s original complaint.

Dichter-Mad

3

Family Partners, LLP v. United States, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1016, 1054

4

(C.D. Cal. 2010).

5

to dismiss (#14, #15) are DENIED AS MOOT.

6

Accordingly, the RPS and CAP defendants’ motions

On April 10, 2013, the RPS and CAP defendants filed motions to

7

dismiss the plaintiff’s first amended complaint (#48, #49).

8

Plaintiff opposed the motions (#56, #57), and defendants have

9

replied (#58, #59).

Plaintiff has pled allegations that support

10

its claims for relief in its first amended complaint and are

11

sufficient to state claims that are plausible on their face.

12

Accordingly, the motions to dismiss are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to

13

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

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

DATED: This 28th day of May, 2013.

16
17

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2