CHALEPLIS et al v. KARLOUTSOS et al

Filing 56

ORDER THAT THE KARLOUTSOS DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (ECF NO. 15 ) IS DENIED; THE KARLOUTSOS DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF (ECF NO. 36 ) IS GRANTED; THE KARLOUTSOS DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAIL URE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 20 ) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PURSUANT TO THIS MOTION, COUNT XI OF THE COMPLAINT (DECLARATORY JUDGMENT) IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. COUNTS XII (ALTER EGO) AND XIII (FRAUD) ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. THE KARLOUTSOS DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER VENUE (ECF NO. 40 ) IS DENIED. THE RODGERS DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (ECF NO. 19 ) IS DENIED. THE RODGERS DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SANCTIO NS (ECF NO. 23 ) IS DENIED. THE RODGERS DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 19 AND FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(7) (ECF NO. 42) IS DENIED. PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(F)(1), COUNT X OF THE COMPLAINT (CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST) IS STRICKEN AS AN INDEPENDENT CLAIM. PLAINTIFFS SHALL FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BY FEBRUARY 11, 2022. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 1/10/22. 1/10/22 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (va)

Case 2:21-cv-01492-ER Document 56 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GABRIEL CHALEPLIS, et al.,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL KARLOUTSOS, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 21-1492

ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of January, 2022, upon
consideration of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
(ECF No. 15), Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim
(ECF No. 20), Motion for Leave to File a Reply Brief (ECF No.
36), and Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue (ECF No. 40) filed
by Defendants Karloutsos and MAK Consulting, LLC (collectively
the “Karloutsos Defendants”), and the Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 19), Motion for Sanctions (ECF
No. 23), and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19
and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) (ECF No. 42) filed by Defendants
Rodgers, Rodgers Investments LLC, and James M. Rodgers, P.C.
(collectively the “Rodgers Defendants”), and all responses
thereto, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
(1)

The Karloutsos Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction (ECF No. 15) is DENIED;

Case 2:21-cv-01492-ER Document 56 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 3

(2)

The Karloutsos Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a
Reply Brief (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED;

(3)

The Karloutsos Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. Pursuant to this motion,
Count XI of the Complaint (declaratory judgment) is
DISMISSED with prejudice. Counts XII (alter ego) and
XIII (fraud) are DISMISSED without prejudice and with
leave to amend.

(4)

The Karloutsos Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or
Transfer Venue (ECF No. 40) is DENIED.

(5)

The Rodgers Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure
to State a Claim (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.

(6)

The Rodgers Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (ECF No.
23) is DENIED.

(7)

The Rodgers Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7) (ECF
No. 42) is DENIED.

(8)

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f)(1), Count X of the
Complaint (constructive trust) is STRICKEN as an
independent claim.

(9)

Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint by February
11, 2022.

Case 2:21-cv-01492-ER Document 56 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 3

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.