Miller v. Henry et al
Filing
35
ORDER Granting 28 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk of Court shall forthwith enter judgment in favor of Defendants Brian Henry, an individual, and Hatched Development, Inc. and against Plaintiff Craig M. Miller. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 2/8/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
CRAIG M. MILLER,
8
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
BRIAN HENRY, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13
***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-CV-01724-PMP-PAL
ORDER
Before the Court for consideration is the fully briefed Motion for Summary
14
Judgment (Doc. #28) filed on behalf of Defendants Brian Henry and Hatched Development,
15
Inc. The facts pertinent to Defendants’ Motion are fully outlined by the Parties in their
16
respective briefs and at the hearing conducted February 6, 2013, and require no
17
comprehensive recitation in this Order except as necessary to address the specific arguments
18
for relief asserted by Defendants. Based upon the arguments presented and the evidence
19
adduced, the Court finds as follows:
20
1.
Plaintiff Miller concedes Defendant Brian Henry, individually, is entitled to
21
summary judgment on all causes of action, and that Defendant Hatched Development, Inc.
22
(“HDI”) is entitled to summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Fraud
23
and Sixth Cause of Action for Conspiracy. Accordingly Defendant Brian Henry,
24
individually, is entitled to summary judgment as to all claims set forth in Plaintiff’s
25
Complaint, and Defendant Hatched Development, Inc. also is entitled to summary judgment
26
as to Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action for Fraud and Sixth Cause of Action for Conspiracy.
1
2.
Plaintiff Miller concedes that no written contract with Defendant HDI was
2
ever consummated, and that his alleged oral contract with HDI would take longer than one
3
year to perform. As a result, the oral contract Plaintiff Miller alleges existed is void under
4
the Statute of Frauds, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 111.220 (2012). The Court finds Plaintiff Miller’s
5
alleged partial performance of the alleged oral contract does not exempt him from the
6
applicable Statutes of Frauds because Plaintiff Miller has not demonstrated that the terms of
7
the oral contract were “clearly and definitely established.” Jones v. Barnhart, 89 Nev. 74, 76
8
(1973). Therefore, Plaintiff Miller has failed to show that a genuine issue exists with respect
9
to the existence of an enforceable contract with Defendant HDI. Hence, Plaintiff Miller’s
10
claim for breach of contract, and all other claims advanced in Plaintiff’s Amended
11
Complaint which are dependent upon the existence of a valid contract must fail for the
12
reasons set forth in Defendants’ Motion and Reply Memorandum (Doc. #28 and Doc. #32) to
13
wit: all remaining Claims for Relief except Plaintiff Miller’s Seventh Claim for Relief for
14
Unjust Enrichment.
15
3.
Finally, the Court finds Plaintiff Miller’s Seventh Claim for Relief for
16
Unjust Enrichment must fail because by this claim Miller seeks recovery for benefits
17
allegedly provided by Advanced Technologies Management, Inc. (“ATM”) to HDI. As a
18
result, no genuine issue of fact remains on this claim.
19
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
20
Judgment (Doc. #28) is GRANTED and that the Clerk of Court shall forthwith enter
21
judgment in favor of Defendants Brian Henry, an individual, and Hatched Development, Inc.
22
and against Plaintiff Craig M. Miller.
23
24
DATED this 8th day of February, 2013.
25
26
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge
2
]]>
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?
