Case Last Refreshed: 2 months ago
Villa, Guadalupe Dina, filed a(n) Premises Liability - Torts case represented by Dennis M Prince, against Buffet At Asia, Buffet At Asia Dba Buffet At Asia Flamingo, Llc, Chenlin, Llc, Dsa Development Corp., Dsa Pf Manager, Llc, (total of 7) See All represented by Jeffrey W. Saab, Melissa Roose, in the jurisdiction of Clark County, NV, . Clark County, NV Superior Courts with L. Eric Johnson presiding.
Case Number |
|
Filing DateAugust 30, 2023 |
CategoryNegligence - Premises Liability |
Last RefreshedFebruary 28, 2024 |
Practice AreaTorts |
Filing LocationClark County, NV |
Matter TypePremises Liability |
| Date | Type | Description | |
|---|---|---|---|
| February 28, 2024 | Docket Event |
Motion for Summary Judgment Vacated - per Judge Judge: Johnson, Eric |
|
| February 28, 2024 | Docket Event |
Joinder Vacated - per Judge Judge: Johnson, Eric |
|
| February 27, 2024 | Docket Event |
Minute Order The subject incident arises from an alleged trip-and-fall incident on an uneven surface in a parking area outside of a restaurant on April 20, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the Defendants acted negligently in failing to maintain the parking area. There are currently six (6) Defendants in this action: (1) Buffet at Asia d/b/a Buffet at Asia Flamingo LLC; (2) Chenlin LLC, (3) Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC; (4) DSA Development Corp.; (5) DSA PF Manager, LLC; and (6) PF4090 LLC. On November 29, 2023, the Defendants PF4090 LLC, Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC, DSA Development Corp., and DSA PF Manager filed a Partial Joinder to Defendant Chenlin's Motion for Summary Judgment. On December 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an Opposition to the Joinder to the Motion. On January 24, 2024, the Defendants PF4090, Pointe Flamingo Holdings LLC, DSA Development Corp and DSA PF Manager filed their Reply in Support of their Joinder. The matter was scheduled for a hearing on January 31, 2024. The hearing was then continued to February 28, 2024. I. Legal Standards a. Summary Judgment Summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issue of fact remains for trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Butler v. Bogdanovich, 101 Nev. 449, 451, 705 P.2d 662, 663 (1985). Accordingly, a district court may not grant summary judgment if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Oehler v. Humana, Inc., 105 Nev. 348, 350, 775 P.2d 1271, 1272 (1989). "Trial judges are to exercise great caution in granting summary judgment, which is not to be granted if there is the slightest doubt as to the operative facts." Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 250, 849 P.2d 320, 322 (1993). However, the opposing party "is not entitled to build a case on the gossamer threads of whimsy, speculation and conjecture." Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 99 Nev. 284, 302, 662 P.2d 610, 621 (1983). b. Punitive Damages Punitive damages are designed to punish and deter a defendant's culpable conduct and act as a means for the community to express outrage and distaste for such conduct. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Thitchener, 124 Nev. 725, 739 (2008). Such a culpable state of mind "denotes conduct that, at a minimum, must exceed mere recklessness or gross negligence." Id. at 743. A plaintiff is never entitled to punitive damages as a matter of right. Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 116 Nev. 598, 612 (2000). Under Nevada law, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages only where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of "oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied." NRS 42.005(1); Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556, 556 (2006). "Oppression" is defined as "despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship with conscious disregard of the rights of the person." NRS 42.001(4). "Fraud" is "an intentional misrepresentation, deception or concealment of a material fact known to the person with the intent to deprive another person of his rights to property or to otherwise injure another person." NRS 42.001(2). Finally, "malice, express or implied" is defined as "conduct which is intended to injure a person or despicable conduct which is engaged in with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." NRS 42.001(3); Coughlin v. Tailhook Ass'n, 112 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that there was substantial evidence to support a finding that the defendant acted with conscious disregard for the rights or safety of its patrons when the evidence showed that the defendant's president instructed security to allow its "boisterous" patrons to "have their fun"). II. Defendant Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC has conceded to their involvement in this lawsuit. Therefore, it is a proper Defendant in this case. In their Reply in Support of their Joinder to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC, conceded its role as a legal entity that owned the property at the time of the subject incident. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC is a proper Defendant/party at this time. III. Regarding Defendant PF4090, LLC, and Defendants DSA Development Corp. and DSA PF Manager, LLC there remains no genuine issues of material fact as to Defendants duties and breach of any duty, and Defendants are entitled to Judgments as a Matter of Law a. Defendant PF4090 Defendant PF4090 obtained the subject property from Defendant Pointe Flamingo Holdings LLC, by Quitclaim Deed sale recorded December 2, 2022 for an amount of $0. Plaintiff alleges that PF4090 may have successor liability as a subsequent property owner because PF4090 did not obtain the property in question through a true sale. However, Plaintiff offers no further support for their claim that PF4090 is a successor in interest to Point Flamingo Holdings, LLC. The only case law that Plaintiff cites for this argument is Vill. Builders 96, L.P. v. U.S. Lab'ys, Inc., 121 Nev. 261, 112 P.3d 1082 (2005). Defendants note this case applies to corporations and not LLCs and, consequently, is only persuasive. However, even if this case law applies, the Plaintiff has not met her burden in proving successor liability by the factors the Nevada Supreme Court listed in the case. In Vill. Builders, the Court required "a fact-specific, case-by-case analysis of the factors necessary to establish an exception to the general rule precluding liability." Id. at 1082. The high Court listed four possible exceptions to the general rule that a subsequent buyer is not liable for the debts of the seller. A subsequent buyer may be liable for the debts of the seller when: 1) The purchaser expressly or impliedly agrees to assume such debts; 2) The transaction is really a consolidation or merger; 3) The purchasing corporation is merely a continuation of the selling corporation; and 4) The transaction was fraudulently made in order to escape liability for such debts." Id. at 268. The Plaintiff bears this burden of proof. Here, the Plaintiff has not met her burden. Regarding the first exception, Plaintiff in her Complaint only assumes that the Defendant PF4090 obtained the property with the intent to assume the debts on it. However, Plaintiff has not supported this conjecture by any further facts. Daryl Alterwitz (member, principal, and person most knowledgeable of Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC) stated in his supporting affidavit, that Defendant PF4090 did not expressly or impliedly assume any debts from Defendant Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC, explaining PF4090 and Point Flamingo Holdings LLC never were merged, and Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC still is in existence. The remaining three (3) factors are not addressed by the Plaintiff in any significant depth or length. As to the second exception, Defendant PF4090 argues that a de facto merger cannot be found under Nevada law. Id. at 272. Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC is still in existence, has admitted to ownership of the property at the time of the subject incident, has been amendable to the lawsuit, and has put its liability insurance carrier on notice. As such, Plaintiff cannot establish successor liability to PF4090 through the merger exception. The third exception concerning whether there was continuity of enterprise does not apply as PF4090 and Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC have always been separate legal entities. They are both continuing in their separate existence, and there are different identifies of stock, stockholders, and directors between the two entities. Id. at 274. The fourth exception, regarding fraud, also does not apply, as Plaintiff has not pled fraud. Without more facts or evidence from Plaintiff to support her contention that Defendant PF4090 had a duty to Plaintiff as a successor in interest, there remains no genuine issue of material fact as to Defendant PF4090's duty to Plaintiff and breach of such duty. Defendant PF 4090 is entitled to a Summary Judgement as to its liability. Plaintiff raises a valid concern as to what may have been the underlying reasons for Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC's sale of the subject property to PF4090 for $0. However, Plaintiff's concern without more does not rise to a question of fact as to PF4090's possible separate liability. Plaintiff asks for 180 days of discovery under NRCP 56(d) to develop evidence of a material issue of fact. In making this request, Plaintiff has the burden to "affirmatively demonstrat[e] why [she] cannot respond to a movant's affidavits as otherwise required ... and how postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable [her], by discovery or other means, to rebut the movant's showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact." Bakerink v. Orthopaedic Assocs., Ltd., 94 Nev. 428, 431, 581 P.2d 9, 11 (1978). "Federal courts interpreting FRCP 56(d), which is identical to NRCP 56(d), have stated that 'a party must show that the requested discovery, if obtained, " would alter the court's determination." " Sciarratta v. Foremost Ins. Co., 137 Nev. 327, 333, 491 P.3d 7, 12 (2021)(quoting Harrison v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, 281 F.R.D. 49, 52 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting Cheyenne Arapaho Tribes of Okla. v. United States, 558 F.3d 592, 596 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). Here, Plaintiff's counsel filed an affidavit declaring that he intended to conduct "necessary depositions and written discovery" for several reasons, including review of ownership, maintenance and control of the parking lot and determination of applicable insurance policies. Counsel's affidavit provides no specifics as to what he in good faith believes he will find and how it will raise issues of fact as to PR4090's liability. The Court finds Plaintiff has not clearly enunciated how discovery might alter this Court's determination. See Sciarratta, 137 Nev. at 333 34, 491 P.3d at 13. Additionally, the Court believes Plaintiff will have sufficient room with her discovery related to Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC, to develop any such facts, if they exist. The Court grants Defendant PR4090's Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice for Plaintiff to move to add the party as a Defendant in the future if facts supporting its liability are developed. b. Defendants DSA PF Manager, LLC, and DSA Development Corp. Defendant DSA PF Manager, LLC alleges that they manage Pointe Flamingo LLC, and not Pointe Flamingo Holdings LLC. Defendant DSA Development Corp. alleges that they manage the legal entity of Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC, but not the subject property. Plaintiff notes neither Defendant supports their argument with any documentation. Plaintiff argues that it is unknown what DSA PF Manager and DSA Development Corp do on a day-to-day basis. As such, it is unknown whether or not they are liable for the property and for Plaintiff s injuries sustained on it. However, while Plaintiff complains of not knowing details of Defendants' operations, Plaintiff has failed to assert any specific facts supporting her claim that the member-LLC s breached a personal duty owed to Plaintiff, and can be held separately liable. Plaintiff"s counsel by his affidavit admits he does not possess the facts to establish Plaintiff"s claims against Defendants DSA PF Manager and DSA Development Corp, but hopes to through discovery. Consequently, Defendants are entitled to Summary Judgment as to their liability. Plaintiff raises a valid concern as to what may distinguish DSA Development Corp's management of Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC's legal entity as oppose to the management of its properties. However, Plaintiff's concern without more does not rise to a question of fact as to DSA Development Corp's possible separate liability as a member-LLC. As noted above, Plaintiff asks for 180 days of discovery under NRCP 56(d) to develop evidence creating a material issue of fact. Plaintiff's Counsel's affidavit provides no specifics as to what he in good faith believes he will find and how it will raise issues of fact as to DSA PF Manager's and DSA Development Corp's liability. The Court finds Plaintiff has not clearly enunciated how discovery might alter this Court's determination. See Sciarratta, 137 Nev. at 333 34, 491 P.3d at 13.The Court believes Plaintiff will have sufficient room with her discovery related to Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC, to develop any such facts, if they exists. The Court grants Defendants DSA PF Manager and DSA Development Corp's Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice for Plaintiff to move to add the parties as Defendants in the future if facts supporting their liability are developed. IV. Plaintiff's request for Punitive Damages is sufficiently pled against Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC, and is not dismissed at this time. Because the Court grants PF4090, DSA PF Manager and DSA Development Corp's Motions for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's claims for punitive damages against Defendants are moot. As to Defendant Pointe Flamingo Holding, LLC, Plaintiff asserts that malice is implied in this instance because Defendant turned a blind eye to the dangerous condition and tripping hazard. Plaintiff alleges Defendant knew about this hazard for some time, and the hazard caused Plaintiff to trip, fall, and sustain injuries. Consequently, Plaintiff argues Defendant's actions constitute "conscious disregard" under NRS 42.001(1). The Court finds that this is sufficient at this time to plead Punitive Damages. The Court denies without prejudice Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's punitive damages claim. V. Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees under NRS 18.010 is denied at this time. Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED. Under NRS 18.010(2)(a) a money judgment under $20,000 is a prerequisite to an award of attorney fees. As to NRS 18.010(2)(b), the Court does not find Plaintiff's claims were "brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party." VI. Conclusion The Court GRANTS the Defendants' Joinder and GRANTS PF4090, DSA PF Manager and DSA Development Corp's Motion for Summary Judgment as to their liability. The Court DENIES Defendants PF4090, DSA PF Manager and DSA Development Corp Joinder in Chenlin's Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages as moot in view of its ruling on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court GRANTS Defendant Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC's Joinder, but DENIES the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages. The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion for Attorney Fees under NRS 18.010. The Court hereby VACATES the February 28, 2024 hearing for Defendants PF4090 LLC, Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC, DSA Development Corp., and DSA PF Manager's Partial Joinder to Defendant Chenlin LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel for Defendants are directed to prepare a proposed order or orders and to circulate it/them to opposing counsel for approval as to form and content before submitting to chambers for signature. Counsel is directed to email a word and pdf copy of the proposed order(s) to dc20inbox@clarkcountycourts.us. CLERK'S NOTE: This Minute Order was electronically served to all registered parties for Odyssey File & Serve. 2.27.24khm Judge: Johnson, Eric |
|
| February 27, 2024 | Docket Event |
Minute Order The subject incident arises from an alleged trip-and-fall incident on an uneven surface in a parking area outside of a restaurant on April 20, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the Defendants acted negligently in failing to maintain the parking area. There are currently six (6) Defendants in this action: (1) Buffet at Asia d/b/a Buffet at Asia Flamingo LLC; (2) Chenlin LLC, (3) Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC; (4) DSA Development Corp.; (5) DSA PF Manager, LLC; and (6) PF4090 LLC. Defendant Chenlin filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on November 20, 2023. On December 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant Chenlin LLC s Motion. On January 24 Defendant Chenlin filed its Reply in Support of its Motion. The matter was scheduled for a hearing on January 31, 2024. The hearing was then continued to February 28, 2024. I. Legal Standards a. Summary Judgment Summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine issue of fact remains for trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Butler v. Bogdanovich, 101 Nev. 449, 451, 705 P.2d 662, 663 (1985). Accordingly, a district court may not grant summary judgment if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Oehler v. Humana, Inc., 105 Nev. 348, 350, 775 P.2d 1271, 1272 (1989). "Trial judges are to exercise great caution in granting summary judgment, which is not to be granted if there is the slightest doubt as to the operative facts." Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 250, 849 P.2d 320, 322 (1993). However, the opposing party "is not entitled to build a case on the gossamer threads of whimsy, speculation and conjecture." Collins v. Union Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 99 Nev. 284, 302, 662 P.2d 610, 621 (1983). b. Punitive Damages Punitive damages are designed to punish and deter a defendant's culpable conduct and act as a means for the community to express outrage and distaste for such conduct. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Thitchener, 124 Nev. 725, 739 (2008). Such a culpable state of mind "denotes conduct that, at a minimum, must exceed mere recklessness or gross negligence." Id. at 743. A plaintiff is never entitled to punitive damages as a matter of right. Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 116 Nev. 598, 612 (2000). Under Nevada law, a plaintiff may recover punitive damages only where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of "oppression, fraud or malice, express or implied." NRS 42.005(1); Bongiovi v. Sullivan, 122 Nev. 556, 556 (2006). "Oppression" is defined as "despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship with conscious disregard of the rights of the person." NRS 42.001(4). "Fraud" is "an intentional misrepresentation, deception or concealment of a material fact known to the person with the intent to deprive another person of his rights to property or to otherwise injure another person." NRS 42.001(2). Finally, "malice, express or implied" is defined as "conduct which is intended to injure a person or despicable conduct which is engaged in with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others." NRS 42.001(3); Coughlin v. Tailhook Ass'n, 112 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that there was substantial evidence to support a finding that the defendant acted with conscious disregard for the rights or safety of its patrons when the evidence showed that the defendant's president instructed security to allow its "boisterous" patrons to "have their fun"). II. Regarding Defendants Chenlin, there are no genuine issues of material fact as to Chenlin's duties to Plaintiff. Defendant Chenlin is entitled to a Judgment as a Matter of law, and the Motion is granted as it relates to Chenlin's Liability. a. Contractual Duty Under the Contract between Defendant Chenlin and Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC, Defendant Chenlin had no contractual duty to maintain the parking lot. Plaintiff is correct that Section 17(A) of the lease provides that the tenant is obligated to "repair, replace, and maintain the Premises in good and tenantable condition [.]" Plaintiff is further correct that Section 17(B) of the lease provides: "andlord shall be under no obligation to make any repairs, alterations, renewals, replacements, or improvements to and upon the Premises or the mechanical equipment exclusively serving the Premises at any time except as expressly provided in this Lease." However, Section 19(B) provides that Landlord is obligated to keep "he portions of the Common Areas owned by Landlord in neat, clean, and orderly condition and to repair any damage to the Common Areas facilities [,]" "Common areas expenses to be incurred by the Landlord explicitly include the costs of resurfacing the parking areas and keeping the surface of the common area in a smooth condition and evenly covered. Under the agreement between Defendant Chenlin and Defendant Pointe Flamingo Holdings, the parking lot is a common area." Further, the Lease agreement did not provide any explicit terminology regarding any agency relationship between Chenlin and Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC. Therefore, there was no agency relationship between Defendant Chenlin and Defendant Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC, and Defendant Chenlin has no joint duty with Defendant Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC to maintain the parking lot. Last, Chenlin was merely leasing the structure from Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC, and not the entire parcel, which is supported by the description of the lease 8,541 square feet, instead of the parcel size 37,889 square feet. Further, Excerpt 17(A) limits the portions of the Premises that tenant is required to "repair, replace, and maintain in good and tenantable condition," to portions that are not included in the "portion[s] of the Premises to be maintained by Landlord as provided in Article 17(B)." b. Common Law Duty As mentioned, Defendant Chenlin was only leasing the structure located on the Property from Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC. Plaintiff is correct that Defendant Chenlin"s duties under the contract cannot dispel Chenlin from its duty to act reasonably under the circumstances and the duty of owners or occupiers of land to exercise reasonable care when another is injured on that land. Coblentz v. Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Union Welfare Fund, 112 Nev. 1161, 925 P.2d 496 (1996), overruled on other grounds by News+Media Cap. Grp. LLC v. Las Vegas Sun, Inc., 137 Nev. 447, 495 P.3d 108 (2021). Here, however, Plaintiff was injured on the property that Defendant Chenlin was not leasing from Pointe Flamingo Holdings, LLC. Therefore Chenlin had no control over the property, had no duty to maintain it, and cannot be held liable to Plaintiff for injury on the property. The Court does not consider Defendant's cite to NRS 41.141 regarding Joint and Several Liability. Joint and Several Liability applies only to situations where the Plaintiff's contributory negligence may be properly asserted as a bona fide issue or defense. Here, however, the Plaintiff was not contributorily negligent; therefore, NRS 41.141 is not a proper means for Defendant to avoid liability. As Chenlin only leased the structure at the Property, Chenlin had no contractual duty to maintain the parking lot. The parking lot was a "common area" under the lease agreement and was to be maintained by the Landlord. As Chenlin had no duty to maintain the parking lot, there are no genuine issues of material fact as to duty and breach for Defendant Chenlin. Therefore, Defendant Chenlin's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to its liability. III. Plaintiff's request for Punitive Damages as against Chenlin is dismissed as moot. Because the Court grants Chenlin's Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff s claim for punitive damages against Defendant is moot. The Court makes no ruling as to the sufficiency of the pleading as against other Defendants. Plaintiff assert that malice is implied in this instance because Defendants turned a blind eye to the dangerous condition and tripping hazard. Defendants knew about this hazard for some time, and the hazard caused Plaintiff to trip, fall, and sustain injuries. Consequently, Defendants actions constitutes "conscious disregard" under NRS 42.001(1). The Court should find that this is sufficient to plead Punitive Damages, and Plaintiff's punitive damages claim should remain at this time. IV. Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees under NRS 18.010 should be denied at this time. Defendant's Motion for Attorney Fees is DENIED. Under NRS 18.010(2)(a) a money judgment under $20,000 is a prerequisite to an award of attorney fees. As to NRS 18.010(2)(b), the Court does not find Plaintiff's claims were "brought or maintained without reasonable ground or to harass the prevailing party." V. Defendant Buffet at Asia Flamingo LLC must not be dismissed at this time. Defendant Chenlin asserts that Defendant Asia Flamingo LLC was not an entity until April 6, 2023 almost one (1) year after the incident on April 20, 2022. However, Defendant Asia Flamingo LLC has not been represented by any attorney, and any claim or defense on its behalf cannot be done by a non-representative of this party. Plaintiff's claims against Buffet at Asia Flamingo LLC will not be dismissed at this time. VI. Conclusion The Court GRANTS without prejudice Defendant Chenlin LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Chenlin's Liability. The Court DENIES Defendant Chenlin's Motion to Dismiss Punitive Damages as moot in view of its ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court DENIES Defendant Chenlin's Motion to Dismiss as to Defendant Buffet at Asia Flamingo LLC, and Motion for Attorney Fees under NRS 18.010. The Court hereby VACATES the February 28, 2024 hearing for Defendant Chenlin LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel for Defendant is directed to prepare a proposed order and to circulate it to opposing counsel for approval as to form and content before submitting it to chambers for signature. Counsel is directed to email a word and pdf copy of the proposed order to dc20inbox@clarkcountycourts.us. CLERK'S NOTE: This Minute Order was electronically served to all registered parties for Odyssey File & Serve. 2.27.24khm Judge: Johnson, Eric |
|
| January 30, 2024 | Docket Event |
Audiovisual Transmission Equipment Appearance Request Doc ID# 44 [44] Notice of Intent to Appear by Simultaneous Audiovisual Transmission Equipment |
|
| January 24, 2024 | Docket Event |
Reply in Support Doc ID# 43 [43] Defendant Chenlin LLCs Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment |
|
| January 24, 2024 | Docket Event |
Reply Doc ID# 42 [42] DEFENDANTS PF4090 LLC, POINTE FLAMINGO HOLDINGS, LLC, DSA DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND DSA PF MANAGERS REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PARTIAL, JOINDER IN PART, TO CHENLIN LLCS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT PF4090, LLC, DSA DEVELOPMENT CORP., AND DSA PF MANAGER, LLC |
|
| December 21, 2023 | Docket Event |
Notice of Entry of Stipulation and Order Doc ID# 41 [41] Notice of Entry of Stipulation and Order to Extend Briefing Schedule and Continue Hearing Re: Motion for Summary Judgment and Joinder |
|
| December 20, 2023 | Docket Event |
Order Doc ID# 40 [40] Order Accepting Proposed Discovery Schedule |
|
| December 20, 2023 | Docket Event |
Stipulation and Order Doc ID# 39 [39] Stipulation and Order to Extend Briefing Schedule and Continue Hearing Re: Motion for Summary Judgment and Joinder |
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
