Gordon v. Impulse Marketing Group Inc

Filing 70

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION; Granting 63 Defendant's Motion to Expedite; Granting in Part and Denying in Part 65 Motion to Strike and in the Alternative, for Clarification (Plaintiff's 40 MOTION to Dismiss Counterclaims and Third Party Defendants SHALL APPLY TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER). Signed by Judge Fred Van Sickle. (CV, Case Administrator)

Gordon v. Impulse Marketing Group Inc

Doc. 70

Case 2:04-cv-05125-FVS

Document 70

Filed 09/12/2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

JAMES S. GORDON, JR., an individual residing in Benton County, Washington,

No. CV-04-5125-FVS ORDER OF CLARIFICATION

Plaintiff, v. IMPULSE MARKETING GROUP, INC.,a Nevada Corporation, Defendant. IMPULSE MARKETING GROUP, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, BONNIE GORDON, JAMES S. GORDON, III, JONATHAN GORDON, JAMILA GORDON, ROBERT PRITCHETT and EMILY ABBEY, Third-Party Defendants. The Court, being fully advised, now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant Impulse Marketing Group, Inc.'s Motion to

Expedite, Ct. Rec. 63, is GRANTED. 2. Defendant Impulse Marketing Group, Inc.'s Motion to Strike

and in the Alternative for Clarification, Ct. Rec. 65, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court determines that Plaintiff's

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION - 1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:04-cv-05125-FVS

Document 70

Filed 09/12/2005

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims and Third Party Defendants Under FRCP 12(b)(6) or in the Alternative For Summary Judgment Under FRCP 56 or in the Alternative To Dismiss Under FRCP 9(b), Ct. Rec. 40, SHALL APPLY TO DEFENDANT'S AMENDED ANSWER. IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby

directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel. DATED this 12th day of September, 2005. s/ Fred Van Sickle Fred Van Sickle United States District Judge

ORDER OF CLARIFICATION - 2