Olsen v. Recontrust Company NA et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 14 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 4/21/2011. (las)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
MELVIN E. OLSEN
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT
vs.
RECONSTRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al.,
Case No. 2:11-CV-81 TS
Defendant.
The Court has before it Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).1 Defendants contend that each of the causes of action alleged in the
Complaint have been repeatedly rejected by this Court and rely upon meritless misinterpretations
of case law and Utah statutes. In response, Plaintiff admits that this Court has repeatedly rejected
similar claims, but argues that the Court’s prior holdings are in error. In reviewing Plaintiff’s
arguments, however, the Court finds no meaningful distinction between this cause of action and
the numerous actions the Court has previously dismissed. As persuasively demonstrated by
1
Docket No. 14.
1
Defendants in their reply memorandum, this Court’s prior orders are founded in well-established
law and have been relied upon by Utah state courts and other federal jurisdictions. The Court,
therefore, finds no reason to depart from its prior holdings that these claims fail as a matter of
law.
Because Plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action upon which relief may be granted,
it is therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 14) is GRANTED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case forthwith.
DATED April 21, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge
2
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?