China Energy Corporation v. Alan T.Hill et al

Filing 281

ORDER denying without prejudice Defendant's 276 Motion to Reconsider; denying as moot Plaintiff's 278 Motion to Extend Time. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/10/2014. (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

CHINA ENERGY CORPORATION,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
ALAN T. HILL, et al.,
Defendants,
ELENA SAMMONS and MICHAEL
SAMMONS,

15
16
17
18

ORDER

v.

13
14

Case No. 3:13-cv-00562-MMD-VPC

Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
COR CLEARING, LLC,
Third-Party Defendant.

19
20

Before the Court is Defendant Michael Sammons’s Motion to Reconsider Order

21

Denying Motion for Partial Summary Judgment re Right to Appraisal of 350,000 Shares

22

of CEC (“Motion to Reconsider”) (dkt. no. 276). The Court has also reviewed Plaintiff

23

China Energy Corporation’s (“CEC”) Motion for Additional Time to respond to the Motion

24

to Reconsider (dkt. no. 278) and Defendant’s opposition (dkt. no. 279). The Court denies

25

without prejudice Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider and denies as moot Plaintiff’s

26

Motion for Additional Time.

27

Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its Order (dkt. no. 269) denying as moot a

28

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“MPSJ”) (dkt. no. 73) that Defendant filed in

1

December 2013. Defendant argues that the Court’s Order overlooked an argument —

2

that the dissenter’s rights notice at issue is void as a matter of law — that Defendant

3

raised implicitly in the MPSJ and explicitly in his reply. (See dkt. no. 276 at 3 n.2.)

4

Although Defendant is correct that the reply discusses whether the dissenter’s rights

5

notice is void (see dkt. no. 95 at 4-5, 23), the MPSJ sought “a partial summary judgment

6

finding that [Defendants Michael Sammons and Elena Sammons] have met the

7

requirements of NRS 92A.300-500 for perfecting their dissenter’s rights,” and a finding

8

that “the Defendants are entitled to a judicial appraisal of the ‘fair value’ of their 350,000

9

shares of CEC.” (Dkt. no. 73 at 10.) In light of the MPSJ’s arguments, Plaintiff’s

10

opposition focused on the deadline by which Defendant should have perfected his

11

dissenter’s rights. (See dkt. no. 94 at 4-7.) Because only Defendant’s reply addressed

12

whether Plaintiff’s dissenter’s rights notice is void as a matter of law, the issue was not

13

fully briefed.

14

The Court therefore denies Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider (dkt. no. 276)

15

without prejudice. Defendant may file a separate motion addressing whether Plaintiff’s

16

dissenter’s rights notice is void as a matter of law. Moreover, because Plaintiff seeks

17

additional time to respond to Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court denies

18

as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time (dkt. no. 279).

19

DATED this 10th day of November 2014

20
21
22
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2