Weinfeld et al v. Minor et al

Filing 99

VACATED PER #[101 ] ORDER : ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 92 ) and the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 95 ) are GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/29/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM) Modified on 6/29/2016 to fix hyperlink (DRM). Modified on 6/29/2016 to denote VACATED. (DRM).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
______________________________________
)
)
JOSEPH WEINFELD et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BILL L. MINOR et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:14-cv-00513-RCJ-WGC
ORDER

12
13

This is a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Precious Minerals Mining & Refining

14

Corp. (“PMMR”) against PMMR President Bill Minor and PMMR Board Members John

15

Reynolds and Walter Marting. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

16

transferred the case to this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) as an alternative to a request to

17

dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The transferor court did not rule on

18

contemporaneous requests to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for failure to

19

comply with Rules 8(a), 9(b), and 23.1(b). This Court dismissed the FAC under the latter rule

20

and Rule 11(a) because it was not verified or even signed by any attorney. Plaintiffs filed the

21

Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), and Defendants moved to dismiss it. The Court ruled that

22

the SAC was not precluded by either of two previous actions litigated in the New York and

23

Nevada state courts but dismissed the SAC, with leave to amend, because it failed to comply

24

with Rule 23.1’s requirement to plead demand and futility with particularity in shareholder

1 of 2

1

derivative litigation. Plaintiffs have filed the Third Amended Complaint, and Defendants have

2

moved to dismiss it for failure to cure the defects with respect to Rule 23.1 and failure to state a

3

claim. A response was due on June 6, 2016, but as of June 7, 2016, Plaintiffs had not timely

4

responded. The Court therefore grants the motion. See Local R. 7-2(d).
CONCLUSION

5
6
7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 92) and the Motion to
Seal (ECF No. 95) are GRANTED.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated this 7ththday of June, 2016.
Dated this 29 day of June, 2016.

11
12
13

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2 of 2