SCHRECK et al v. NEWSHOLME FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. et al
Filing
51
MEMORANDUM ORDER that the 16 and 17 Motions to Dismiss are Administratively Terminated as moot. Signed by Judge Brian R. Martinotti on 1/25/2018. (mps)
Case 3:17-cv-01177-BRM-LHG Document 51 Filed 01/25/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 506
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
__________________________________________
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
NEWSHOLME FINANCIAL CENTER LLC,
:
NEWSHOLME FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
:
MVP FINANCIAL LLC, SCOTT NEWSHOLME, :
individually, and JOSEPH DEFALCO, individually, :
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________________:
JAMES SCHRECK, JAMES GOUGEON,
JAMES GOUGEON, and KING HIGH
GARAGE, INC.,
Civ. Action No. 17-1177-BRM-LHG
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before this Court are: (1) a Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Newsholme Financial
Services, Inc. and the Estate of John Newsholme (collectively, the “Newsholme Defendants”) to
dismiss Plaintiffs James Schreck, James Gougeon, and King High Garage, Inc.’s (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) claims against them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No.
16); and (2) Defendant Guy Tirondola’s (“Tirondola”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against
him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 17). In response to both
Motions, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 18.) Pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 78(b), the Court did not hear oral argument. For the reasons set forth herein,
both Motions are moot and are, therefore, ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATED.
On February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action, asserting a variety of
claims against several defendants, including John Newsholme, Newsholme Financial Services,
Case 3:17-cv-01177-BRM-LHG Document 51 Filed 01/25/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 507
and Tirondola, arising from an alleged Ponzi scheme. (ECF No. 1.) On April 20, 2017, the
Newsholme Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16.) On April 21, Tirondola filed
his Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 17.)
The Newsholme Defendants argue the Complaint is devoid of any specific allegations
against either John Newsholme or Newsholme Financial Services. (Id. at 1.) Further, the
Newsholme Defendants note John Newsholme died on August 2, 2016, and therefore the proper
party would be the Estate of John Newsholme. Finally, the Newsholme Defendants argue
Newsholme Financial Services was a distinct entity from Defendant Newsholme Financial Center,
which is operated by John Newsholme’s estranged brother, Defendant Scott Newsholme. (Id. at
2.) The Newsholme Defendants argue the claims against them should be dismissed, as all of the
allegations in the Complaint concern Defendants Newsholme Financial Center and Scott
Newsholme. (Id.)
On May 1, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, in which they do not assert any
claims against the John Newsholme or the Estate of John Newsholme. (ECF No. 18.) On
September 11, 2017, Newsholme Financial Services filed an Answer jointly with Defendants Scott
Newsholme, Newsholme Financial Center, and MVP Financial LLC. (ECF No. 45.) As there are
no claims pending against the Estate of John Newsholme, and as Newsholme Financial Services
has filed an Answer, the Newsholme Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is moot and should be
administratively terminated.
On June 23, 2017, Plaintiffs submitted a Stipulation of Dismissal without prejudice as
against Tirondola (ECF No. 34), which the Court entered on June 26, 2017 (ECF No. 35). As
Tirondola has been dismissed from the case, his Motion to Dismiss is moot and should be
administratively terminated.
2
Case 3:17-cv-01177-BRM-LHG Document 51 Filed 01/25/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 508
Accordingly,
IT IS on this 25th day of January 2018,
ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 16, 17) be ADMINISTRATIVELY
TERMINATED as moot.
/s/ Brian R. Martinotti
HON. BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?