Sinclair et al v. Fox Hollow, et al, No. 1:2003cv05439 - Document 644 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION Regarding Defendant's 485 Motion For a More Definite Statement, signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 6/27/2011. (1) Plaintiffs motion for a more definite statement is GRANTED; 2) Plaintiffs shall file a form of order consistent with this decision within five (5) days of electronic service of this decision; and 3) Lairtrust shall file an amended counterclaim within thirty (30) days.) (Gaumnitz, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 RICHARD SINCLAIR, et al. Plaintiffs, 9 10 11 12 FOX HOLLOW OF TURLOCK OWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al. Defendants. 14 I. INTRODUCTION. 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 MEMORANDUM DECISION REGARDING DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (Doc. 485) v. 13 16 1:03-cv-05439-OWW-DLB This case is a consolidation of three actions: An action commenced Association Sinclair, by Plaintiff ("Fox Gregory Fox Hollow") Mauchley, Hollow against of Turlock Richard Lairtrust, Homeowners' Sinclair, LLC, Brandon Capstone, LLC, Mauctrst, LLC, and Stanley Flake as Trustee of Capstone Trust, Case No. CV-F-03-5439 OWW/DLB ("Fox Hollow Action"); an action commenced by California Equity Management Group, Inc. ("CEMG") against Mauctrst LLC, Gregory Mauchley, Diana Mauchley, Lairtrust LLC, Richard Sinclair, Deborah Sinclair, Sinclair Enterprises, Inc., Capstone, LLC, Brandon Sinclair, Stanley Flake, and Stanley Flake as Trustee of the F. Hanse Trust and of the Julie Insurance Trust Case No. CVF- 03-5774 OWW/DLB ("CEMG Action"); and an action commenced by Lairtrust LLC, Mauctrst LLC, and Capstone LLC against 28 1 1 Fox Hollow, Andrew Katakis, and California Equity Management Group, 2 Inc. in the Stanislaus County Superior Court, Case No. 322675 3 ("Lairtrust Action"), removed to this Court and consolidated with 4 the Fox Hollow and CEMG Actions by Order filed on October 6, 2003 5 ("Consolidated Federal Actions"). 6 On January 19, 2011, Defendant Lairtrust LLC ( Lairtrust ) 7 filed a counterclaim against Plaintiffs. (Doc. 471). The majority 8 of Lairtrust s counterclaim has been stayed. 9 only claims that are not stayed are claims arising out of conduct 10 related to Lot 1 of the Fox Hollow Property during the time period 11 from 2007 to 2009; these claims are the subject of Plaintiff s 12 motion for more definite statement filed February 14, 2011. 13 485). 14 (See Doc. 563). Lairtrust filed opposition on March 28, 2011. The (Doc. (Doc. 510). 15 Plaintiffs filed a reply to Lairtrust s opposition on April 4, 16 2011. (Doc. 531). II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. 17 18 This action a arises out thirty-five of California, known as Fox Hollow of Turlock ("the Property"). 21 Plaintiff Fox Hollow is the home owners' association ("HOA") for 22 the Property. Plaintiff CEMG is the record owner of lots contained 23 within the Property, the successor in interest to lenders who 24 extended loans 25 assignee of the rights of certain tenants who entered into leases 26 for units contained in the Property. Mauctrst, Lairtrust, and 27 Capstone are limited liability companies ("LLC Defendants")that 28 were allegedly used to convert 2 within HOA complex the in scheme 20 lots home fraudulent concerning by town alleged 19 secured unit an Property, funds, effect Turlock, and the property 1 transfers, obtain loans, prosecute dilatory lawsuits, and to carry 2 out other parts of the alleged schemes that form the basis for 3 Plaintiffs' claims. 4 The court has stayed all claims asserted in Lairtrust s 5 counterclaim except for claims arising out of "Plaintiffs' alleged 6 conduct during and after trial of the state court action." 7 Docs. 473; 563). 8 claims 9 counterclaims are based on the following alleged conduct carried are (See Lairtrust s allegations concerning the unstayed unclear, but it appears Lairtrust s unstayed 10 out by Plaintiffs: 11 1 and then wrongfully foreclosed on Lot 1 during the operative time 12 period; (2) the Fox Hollow HOA s accounting for Lot 1 contained 13 numerous discrepancies during the operative time period; and (3) 14 Katakis excluded Lairtrust from voting and participating in the 15 HOA. III. LEGAL STANDARD. 16 17 18 19 20 21 (1) Katakis assessed extra assessments on Lot Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) provides in pertinent part: A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but [*9] which is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. The motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading and must point out the defects complained of and the details desired. 22 The Ninth Circuit has held that the federal rules ordinarily do not 23 require the pleader to set forth "the statutory or constitutional 24 basis for his claim, only the facts underlying it." McCalden v. 25 California Library Ass'n, 955 F.2d 1214, 1223 (9th Cir. 1990) 26 (reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion). "A motion for a more definite 27 statement is used to attack unintelligibility, not mere lack of 28 3 1 detail, and a complaint is sufficient if it is specific enough to 2 apprise the defendant of the substance of the claim asserted 3 against him or her." San Bernardino Pub. Employees Ass'n v. Stout, 4 946 F. Supp. 790, 804 (C.D. Cal. 1996). A motion for a more 5 definite statement should be denied "where the information sought 6 by the moving party is available and/or properly sought through 7 discovery." Famolare, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F. 8 Supp. 940, 949 (E.D. Cal. 1981). "Thus, a motion for a more 9 definite statement should not be granted unless the defendant 10 literally cannot frame a responsive pleading." Bureerong v. Uvawas, 11 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1461 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (citing Boxall v. Sequoia 12 Union High School District, 464 F. Supp. 1104, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 13 1979)). IV. DISCUSSION. 14 15 Lairtrust s counterclaim asserts twelve causes of action. It 16 is unclear from the face of the counterclaim which of the twelve 17 causes of action are based on conduct that is outside the scope of 18 the issues that have already been stayed. For example, inter alia, 19 Lairtrust s fraud cause of action does not reference specific 20 conduct but rather makes general allegations that may or may not 21 concern conduct and issues that are subject to the order staying 22 portions of Lairtrust s counterclaim. 23 unclear as to what alleged actions and omissions by Plaintiffs are 24 the basis for each cause of action, and because the majority of 25 Lairtrust s counterclaim has been stayed, a more definite statement 26 is required to permit Plaintiffs to frame a response. 27 motion for a more definite statement is GRANTED. 28 /// 4 Because the complaint is Plaintiffs ORDER 1 2 For the reasons stated, IT IS ORDERED: 3 1) 4 GRANTED; 5 2) Plaintiffs shall file a form of order consistent with this 6 decision within five (5) days of electronic service of this 7 decision; and 8 3) Lairtrust shall file an amended counterclaim within thirty 9 (30) days following service of the order granting Plaintiffs 10 Plaintiffs motion for a more definite statement motion. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: hkh80h June 27, 2011 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 is
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
