Rich Media Club et al v. Mentchoukov et al
Filing
201
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying without prejudice 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying without prejudice 5 Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Replevin. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 07/27/2012. (tls)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
RICH MEDIA CLUB, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
AND MOTION FOR
PREJUDGMENT WRIT OF
REPLEVIN
vs.
NIKOLAI MENTCHOUKOV, et al.,
Case No. 2:11-CV-1202 TS
Defendants.
Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction1 and Motion for Writ of Replevin2
on January 3, 2012. Soon thereafter, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss along with a
motion to stay consideration of the preliminary judgment and replevin motions until the Court
ruled on the Motion to Dismiss.
1
Docket No. 5.
2
Docket No. 5
1
Initially, the Court stated that it would hear the motion to dismiss together with the
injunction and replevin motions in March. After some back and forth from the parties, the Court
rescheduled the injunction and replevin hearings, and held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss on
March 28, 2012.
On April 3, 2012, the Court issued its Memorandum Decision on Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss. The Court dismissed the large majority of Plaintiffs’ claims, but gave Plaintiffs thirty
days to file an amended complaint. Among the rejected claims was Plaintiffs’ replevin action,
which was dismissed without prejudice. Based on that holding, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’
Motion for Writ of Replevin without prejudice.
Plaintiffs also included an injunction claim in their Complaint. In its Memorandum
Decision, the Court stated that it would consider the briefing on the independent injunction
motion at a later date. On April 26, the Court set a hearing on the injunction motion. On April
30, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to withdraw the injunction motion. On May 3, 2012,
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The parties agree that the injunction motion should be withdrawn. However, Defendants
seek to have the Court dismiss the motion with prejudice.
Based on the parties’ stipulation, the Court will order that the Motion be dismissed.
However, the Court sees no cause for denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue a preliminary
injunction based on their amended allegations. To the extent Plaintiffs’ injunction motion may
rely on claims or theories already rejected by the Court in its Memorandum Decision, the
injunction must of course be denied on those grounds. However, to the extent that the
2
amendments to the Complaint may support an injunction, the Court will consider that claim as it
arises. It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 5) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Replevin (Docket No. 5) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
in light of the Court’s Memorandum Decision dated April 3, 2012.
DATED July 27, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
TED STEWART
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?