Yerk v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, No. 2:2009cv00537 - Document 67 (M.D. Fla. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 61 Motion for clarification/reconsideration. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/2/2010. (RKR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Yerk v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Doc. 67 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION ROBERT E. TARDIF, JR., as Trustee for Jason Yerk, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 2:09-cv-537-FtM-29SPC PEOPLE for the ETHICAL TREATMENT of ANIMALS, a Virginia not-for-profit corporation, Defendant. ___________________________________ OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendant s Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration (Doc. #61), filed on October 5, 2010. Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #66) on October 25, 2010. On September 21, 2010, the Court entered an Opinion and Order (Doc. #59) denying Defendant s Motion for Summary Judgment based on Judicial Estoppel (Doc. #37). In its motion, defendant sought dismissal of this case as a sanction for Yerk s failure to disclose this case as an asset in his then-pending bankruptcy case. In denying the motion, the Court reasoned, in part, that dismissing this case would victimize plaintiff s creditors and result in a windfall for defendant. Therefore, the Court did not disturb the corrective action taken in the Bankruptcy Court, and allowed the bankruptcy trustee to substitute in as plaintiff in this case and prosecute this action. Dockets.Justia.com Defendant now seeks an order clarifying that, in the event the trustee achieves a favorable judgment for the benefit of Yerk s creditors, Yerk will not recover anything personally. Defendant also seeks reconsideration of the prior Opinion and Order. To the extent defendant seeks reconsideration, that request is denied. The Court considered the matter in detail before entering its Opinion and Order, and while defendant disagrees with the result, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its decision. Court also finds that no clarification is needed. The The Court did not rule on any issue relating to funds in excess of those needed to satisfy creditors, and declines to issue such an advisory opinion now. Defendant s reliance upon Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(1) is misplaced because nothing in the judicial estoppel motion impacted the merits of the claim against PETA, and the Court made no merits-based findings. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: Defendant s Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration (Doc. #61) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this November, 2010. Copies: Counsel of record -2- 2nd day of
]]>
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.
