TCA Properties, LLC et al v. FJ Management Inc.
Filing
89
ORDER that the parties' sixth stipulation for an extension of time ECF No. 88 is DENIED; Plaintiffs' Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 69 and Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 75 are DENIED without prejudice; in the event settlement shall not be finalized by 04/06/2017, the parties shall file a joint status report disclosing their settlement progress over the preceding month and any requested further action by the court. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 03/07/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW) Modified on 3/7/2017 to add date for status report (KW).
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
TCA PROPERTIES, LLC, a Nevada limited
liability company; and GAS PROPERTIES,
LLC, a Nevada limited liability company,
10
Case No. 3:14-cv-0267-LRH-WGC
11
Plaintiffs,
12
ORDER
v.
13
FJ MANAGEMENT, INC., a Utah corporation
formerly known as Flying J. Inc.,
14
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
Before the court is the parties’ sixth stipulation and order extending time. ECF No. 88.
19
Also before the court are plaintiffs TCA Properties, LLC (“TCA”) and Gas Properties, LLC’s
20
(“Gas”) (collectively “plaintiffs”) second renewed motion for partial summary judgment
21
(ECF No. 69) and defendant FJ Management Inc.’s (“FJM”) cross-motion for summary
22
judgment (ECF No. 75).
This is a breach of contract action between plaintiffs and FJM arising from a dispute over
23
24
the interpretation and application of a grading and easement contract (“Grading Agreement”).1
25
The parties in this suit are the owners of three separate but adjoining parcels of
26
undeveloped property running parallel to Interstate 80 (“I-80") on the south side of the interstate
27
1
28
A copy of the Grading Agreement is attached as Exhibit 2 to plaintiffs’ renewed motion for partial summary
judgment. See ECF No. 51, Ex. 2.
1
1
and directly west of Robb Drive in Reno, Nevada. Defendant FJM’s 40-acre parcel abuts I-80
2
and is adjacent to Robb Drive at the I-80 and Robb Drive interchange (“Robb Drive
3
interchange”). FJM acquired the property in 2004 in order to build a truck stop. In 2005, FJM
4
purchased from the State of Nevada a break in control of access and abutter’s rights for the thin
5
strip of land between the FJM property and Robb Drive. As a result of this contract, FJM gained
6
an access easement to Robb Drive from the FJM property that included the right to develop an
7
intersection from the property onto Robb Drive. In 2008, FJM filed bankruptcy and abandoned
8
its plan for a truck stop. At this time, there is no developed intersection or roadway access to
9
Robb Drive from the FJM property.
10
Plaintiff TCA’s property directly abuts FJM’s property to the west and plaintiff Gas’
11
property directly abuts TCA’s property. Both properties border I-80 but do not have access to
12
either I-80 or Robb Drive. Rather, the only access to plaintiffs’ parcels is through LeRoy Street
13
which is not a major egress point for vehicles, but does provide both properties with access to
14
public utilities.
15
In the hope of improving the value of all properties, the parties entered into the
16
aforementioned Grading Agreement in March 2012. Pursuant to the Grading Agreement,
17
plaintiffs agreed to move approximately 600,000 cubic yards of earth from the FJM property
18
onto the TCA property. The removal of the overburden from the FJM property would bring that
19
property to a surface elevation consistent with the existing Robb Drive interchange. The
20
overburden would then be used on the TCA property to fill a large canyon that dissects the
21
property. As a result of this mass grading all three properties would be brought to the same level
22
and create a “super pad” that would allow for the eventual development of all the properties. In
23
exchange for the grading of its property and an easement across plaintiffs’ properties for public
24
utilities, defendant FJM was to convey to plaintiffs a “right of way for access” across its property
25
and the purchased abutter’s rights to Robb Drive.
26
This suit arose in 2013 when FJM allegedly anticipatorily breached the Grading
27
Agreement by refusing to fund and build an intersection on its property that would provide
28
plaintiffs with improved access onto Robb Drive. On March 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed the
2
1
underlying complaint against FJM alleging five causes of action: (1) breach of contract;
2
(2) breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing; (3) specific performance; (4)
3
fraud in the inducement; and (5) declaratory relief. ECF No. 1., Ex. A. On August 10, 2015,
4
plaintiffs’ filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their claims for breach of contract,
5
specific performance, and declaratory relief. ECF No. 51. In response, FJM filed a cross-motion
6
motion for partial summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief. ECF No. 55.
7
On March 22, 2016, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary
8
judgment and granting FJM’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment. ECF No. 63.
On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed a second renewed motion for summary judgment or,
9
10
in the alternative, for clarification. ECF No. 69. In response, on September 19, 2016, FJM filed
11
its own cross-motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 75. Since the filing of the parties’ cross-
12
motions, the parties have filed five (5) separate stipulations for extensions of time to file
13
response briefs to the motions. See ECF Nos. 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86. The court granted all five
14
stipulations extending the deadline to file responses from the fall of 2016 until March 6, 2017.
15
See ECF Nos. 77, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87. In granting the last stipulation, the court specifically
16
ordered that no further extensions shall be granted.
17
On March 6, 2017, the deadline for responsive briefing to the motions for summary
18
judgment, the parties filed the present sixth stipulation for extension of time seeking an extension
19
on the response deadline well into April 2017. ECF No. 88. In their stipulation, the parties
20
contend that they have reached a tentative settlement, but that the settlement agreement will take
21
more time to complete. The court recognizes the time and energy the parties have spent on
22
reaching the settlement. But, the court also recognizes that there have been pending motions on
23
the court’s docket for over six (6) months with no response. The court finds that the appropriate
24
action at this time is to deny the pending motions for summary judgment without prejudice. This
25
action will allow the parties time to work on the settlement and complete all necessary
26
documentation without the need to ask the court for additional continuances and extensions of
27
time while at the same time clearing the court’s docket of pending motions that cannot be
28
///
3
1
addressed. In the event the proposed settlement should break down, the court will allow refiling of
2
the subject motions.
3
4
5
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ sixth stipulation for an extension of
time (ECF No. 88) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ second renewed motion for summary
6
judgment (ECF No. 69) and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 75) are
7
DENIED without prejudice.
8
9
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event settlement shall not be finalized within
thirty (30) days after the entry of this order, the parties shall file a joint status report disclosing
their settlement progress over the preceding month and any requested further action by the court.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
DATED this 7th day of March, 2017.
13
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?