Moulton v. Eugene Burger Management Corporation, No. 3:2008cv00253 - Document 38 (D. Nev. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING D Salem Plaza Condominium Assoc's 22 Motion to Dismiss. ; FURTHER ORD GRANTING Ds Lakeside Plaza Condomininum Assoc, Ulla Christensen, Shane Michael Grady, Eugene J. Burger Management Corp, Eugene Burger, Kevin Berg, Daniel N. Joseph, Frank Perau, and Rich Svihla's 21 Motion to Dismiss/Joinder.; FURTHER ORD GRANTING Ds Gayle A. Kern and Gayle A. Kern Ltd'd 23 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.; GRANTING 24 Request for Judicial Notice. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Brian E. Sandoval on 2/2/2009. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
* FIL' FD ENTERED REOSIVED SERVFD0N CSIJSSEUFJSVIES()fFIECOFIO 1 2 FE8 - : 3 2265 3 4 CLEDt Rq USDlS1RIV COLIFIT bTRIZ1'OFNLVADA . 7Y: pqqtl 'ry 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT 8 DISTRICT O F NEVADA 9 SHERYL MOULTON,iqdividqally and on ) behalfofaIIothers sim llarlysltuated, ) 10 ) Plaintiffs, ) 11 ) v. ) 12 ) EUGENE BURGER MANAGEMENT ) 13 CORPORATIO N,a California Corporation' , ) EUGENE J.BURGER;KEVIN BERG' ,JOHN ) 14 COLEMANT 'SALEM PLAM ) CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION' ,GAYLE A.) 15 KERN,LTD' ,GAYLE A.KERN' ,ULLA ) cHRlSTENSENsbothaq individualand ) 16 Lakeside Plaza Bpaqd Dlrector' !MICHAEL ) GRADY,both js Indlvidualand Lakeside ) 17 Plaza Bgard Dlrector' uDANIEL JOSEPH, ) bgth as lndividualand Lakeside Plaza Board ) 18 Dlrqqtor' ,FRANK A,PERAU,both as ) indlvldualand Lakeside Plaza Bgard ) 19 Director;RICH SVIH1.. A,both asIndividual ) and Lakeside Plaza Board Director' , ) 20 LAKESIDE PLAZ-A CONDOMINIUM ) Moulton v. Eugene Burger Management Corporation 21 3:08-cv-00253-BES-RAM ORDER Doc. 38 ASSOCIATION' ,and DOES 1-500, Defendants. ) ) 22 23 Currently before the Coud is Defendants Lakeside Plaza Condom inium Association, 24 Ulla Christensen,Shane M ichaelGrady,Eugene J.BurgerManagem entCorporation,Eugene 25 Burger,Kevin Berg,DanielN.Joseph,FrankPerau and Rich Svihla's(collectivelyreferredto 26 hereinasthe''LakesideDefendantsn)MotiontoDismissPlaintiffsComplaint(#5)filedonMay 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 30,2008.1 Plainti; Sher/ Moulton (iiplaintiff')filed an Opposition (#12)to the Lakeside 2 Defendants'M otionto Dism iss on October27,2008. The Lakeside Defendants filed a Reply 3 (#28)on November18,2008. 4 Also before the Courtis DefendantSalem Plaza Condom inium Association's Motion 5 to DismissPlaintiff'sComplaint(#22)filedonNovember17,2008.PlaintifffiledanOpposition 6 to DefendantSalem Plaza C ondom inium A ssociation's M otion to D ism iss Plaintifrs Com plaint 7 (#31)on December5,2008,and DefendantSal em Plaza Condominium Association filed a 8 Reply (#35)on December16,2008. 9 Also before the Coud is Defendants Gayle A. Kern and Gayle A. Kern, LTD'S 10 (collectivelyreferredtohereinasthe''KernDefendants'')MotiontoDismissforFailuretoState l1 12 13 14 15 a Claim and forLackofSubjectMatterJurisdiction' ,Joinderin Lakeside Defendants'Motion to Dismiss(#23)filed on November17,2008.The Kern Defendantsalsofileda RequestFor JudicialNotice (#24)on Novem ber 17,2008. Plaintifffiled an Opposition to the Kern Defendants'Motionto Dismiss(#33)onDecember5,2008,andthe Kern Defendantsfiled a Reply (#37)on December23,2008. 16 BACKG ROUND 17 PlaintiffiledaComplaint(#1)inthisactiononMay13,2008.IntheComplaint,Plainti; 18 asseded various claim s based on alleged illegalassessm ents im posed atLakeside Plaza 19 Condominium Association('tl-akeside'')andSalem PlazaCondom inium Association(' tSaIem''). 20 The Com plaintm irrorsm anyofthe claim sfiled in a previousIawsuitby Plaintiffpending before 21 thisCoud.Thatcase,3:08-cv-176,was initiallyfiled in the United States DistrictCoud forthe 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 1TheLakesideDefendyntsresubmittedtheirmotiontodispissaftetproofsofservicqwerqfilqd 28 inthismalter.SeeMotiontoDlsmiss(//21).Assuch,theCourtwl11consolldatethetwomotlonslnthls O rder. 2 1 Nodhern DistrictofCalifornia before being transferred to the DistrictofNevada.Although the 2 two cases are nearly identical,Plaintiffhas alleged claims againsttwo new defendants in this 3 action:John Colem an and Salem Plaza Condom inium Association.z 4 According to Plaintiff,she filed this action in orderto bring claim s againstthe new 5 defendants. Specifically,Plainti ffalleges thatSalem im posed an illegalassessm enton the 6 condom inium she owned atSalem in 2005. Unlike the assessm entim posed atLakeside, 7 Plaintifftim ely paid the Salem assessm entand no foreclosure proceedings were instigated 8 againstthatpropedy. In January 2006,Plaintiffsold herSalem condom inium . 9 ANALYSIS 10 1. Salem 's M otion to Dism iss 11 On November17,2008,Salem filed a Motion to Dism iss Plaintiffs Complaint(#22). 12 In its m otion,Salem argues thatthe assessm entim posed on Plaintifrs Salem condom inium 13 'icannotbe the subjectofanyIitigation''because Plaintifftimelypaidtheassessmentand also 14 because itwas imposed three years before Plaintifffiled herComplaint. (DefendantSalem 15 Plaza Condominium Association's Motion to Dismiss Plaintifrs Complaint (#22) at 2). 16 AccordingtoSalem,Plaintiff'sComplaintdisanunlaM ulattemptby(PlaintifqtohavethisCoud 17 review whetherornotaspecialreserveassessment...(was)appropriate,''Ld=.at4.However, 18 Salem argues thatthe claims asserted in Plaintifrs Com plaint''failto assertany Iegaltheory 19 thatis cogni zable as a m aqerofIaw and fails to allege sufficientfactsto suppod a cogni zable 20 claim.''Ld=. 21 Although Plaintifffiled anOpposition (#31)toSalem'smotion,the Oppositionfocuses 22 on the alleged illegalconductofotherdefendants in this action. (Plainti ff's Opposition to 23 DefendantSalem Plaza Condom inium Association's Motion to Dism iss Plaintifrs Com plaint 24 (#31)). However,Plaintiffdoes assed thati tis her''contention thatdefendantsconspired to 25 em bezzle,defraud and extortapproxim ately one m illion from homeowners' 'atSalem and 26 27 7 O n Decem ber17, 2008,theCourtissuedaNoticeoflntenttoDismissJohn Colqmaypursuant 28 toFRCP4(m).(Notice(//36)) PlaintifffailedtoserveJohnColemanandthushewasdlsmlssedfrom thisactionpursuanttoFRCPk(m). 3 1 Lakeside.Ld=.at2.Plaintiffalsostatesthatshe''canestablish,atavel 'yminimum ,negligence 2 in the underfunding ofthe reserves' 'atboth Salem and Lakeside. $-.at5. . 3 The purpose ofa motionto dismiss underRule 12(b)(6)istotestthe Iegalsufficiency 4 ofthe complaint. Navarro v.Block,250 F.3d 729,732 (9th Cir.2001).DismissalunderRule 5 12(b)(6)isproperonlywhena complaintexhibitsei thera 'Iackofacognizable Iegaltheoryor 6 the absence ofsufficientfacts alleged undera cognizable Iegaltheory.''Balistreriv.Pacifica 7 Police Dent.,901 F.2d 696,699 (9th Cir.1990).The Courtmustacceptas true alImaterial 8 allegations inthe com plaintaswellas aIIreasonable inferencesthatm ay be drawn from such 9 allegations. LSO.Ltd.v.Stroh,205 F.3d 1146,1150 (9th Cir.2000).The Courtmustalso 10 construe the allegations ofthe com plaintin the Iightmostfavorable to the nonm oving party. 11 Shwarz v.United States,234 F.3d 428,435 (9th Cir.2000). The Coud may only granta 12 motiontodismissunderRule 12(b)(6)ifitiscertainthatthe plainti#willnotbeenti tledto relief 13 underany setoffacts thatcould be proven underthe allegations ofthe com plaint. Cahillv. 14 Libertv Mut.lns.Co.,80 F.3d 336,338 (9thCir.1996). 15 Although a coud's review on a 12(b)(6)motion to dismiss isgenerally 'Iimited to the 16 contents ofthe com plaint,'the courtm ay also considerdocum entsattached to the com plaint, 17 documents incorporated by reference in the complaint,ormattersofjudicialnotice without 18 converting the motion into a motion forsummaryjudgment,? See Durning M.FirstBoston 19 CorD.,815 F.2d 1265,1267 (9th Cir.1987). 20 ln this m atter,Salem is entitled to an orderdism issing it from the case because 21 construing the allegationsofthe com plaintin the Iightm ostfavorable to the nonm oving party, 22 Plaintiffhas failed to state a claim upon w hich reliefcan be granted againstSalem . ln this 23 regard,the state Iaw claims asserted againstSalem are barred by Nevada Iaw ,and Plaintifrs 24 federalIaw claim s failto plead su#icientfacts againstSalem . 25 26 3 TheNinthCircuithasqxpresslystatedthatadistrictcourtmaytakeûjudicialnoticeofcourt 27 filingsandothgrmattersofpubllcrecord.''Reyn'sPastaBella.LLC v.VisaUSA.lncw442F.3d741, 746n.6(9thClq.2006);segalsqLattav.W ,Inv,Co.,173F,2d99,103(9thCinlg4gltholdingthatthe 28 courtrqaytakeludicialyqtlceoftherecordsandfilesgfthecourt).Thus,theKernDefendants'requcst thatthlsCourttakejudlclalnoticeofthecourt'st'ileIncase3:08-cv-176isgranted. 4 1 NRS 38.310 states that no civilaction based upon a claim relating to i'ltlhe 2 interpretation, application or enforcem ent of any covenants, conditions or restrictions 3 applicable to residentialproperty,''or'dltlhe procedures used forincreasing,decreasing or 4 im posing additionalassessments upon residentialpropedy ...m ay be com menced in any 5 courtin this State unless the action has been subm itted to m ediation orarbitration pursuant 6 to the provisionsofNRS 38.300 to 38.360,inclusive....''NRS 38.310(1). Moreover,that 7 statute provides thata ddcourtshalldism iss any civilaction which is com m enced in violation'' 8 oftheforegoing subsection. NRS 38.310(2).Accordingto the Nevada Supreme Court,this 9 statute d 'expresses Nevada's public policy favoring arbitration of disputes involving the 10 interpretation and enforcementofCC&Rs.'' Ham m v.Arrowcreek Hom eowners'Ass'n,124 1l Nev.28,183 P.3d 895,902 (Nev.2008). 12 In Iightofthe foregoing,the state law claim s asseded againstSalem are dism issed. 13 These claim sare based on an allegationbyPlainti ffthatSalem im posedan illegalassessment 14 on herpropedy in violation ofSalem'sCC&Rs.4 (Plaintiff's Opposi tionto DefendantSalem 15 PlazaCondominium Association'sMotiontoDismissPlaintifrsCom plaint(#31)at8).Plainti; 16 tim ely paid this assessm entand no foreclosure proceedingswere everinstigated againsther 17 Salem propedy.As a resul t,thiscase falls squarely withinthe confinesofNRS 38.310.Thus, 18 Plaintiffis required by Nevada Iaw to subm itthese claim s to m ediation orarbitration before 19 filing a civilaction. 20 In addition, the Court finds that Plaintif' f has failed to allege sufficient facts in her 21 complaintto survivedismissalofherfederalIaw claimsunderRule 12(b)(6).Asnoted inthe 22 foregoing,aiRule 12(b)(6)dismissalmaybebasedoneithera'IackofcognizableIegaltheory' 23 or 'the absence of sufficientfacts alleged under a cognizable legaltheory.'''Johnson v. 24 Riverside Healthcare Svs..LP,534 F.3d 1116,1121 (9th Cir.2008). In pleading sufficient 25 facts ora cognizable Iegaltheory,the com plaint''m ustprovide a 'shod and plain statementof 26 the claim showing that(the plaintiq isentitled to relief.''Ld=.(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(2)). 27 28 4 Plaintiffs Complaint specifically states thatthe claims asserted againstSalem are çifora wrongfulspecialassessment.''(Complaint(#1)at7). 5 1 Although'dlslpecificfactsarenotnecessary,'thestatementneedstoi 'givethedefendantlsjfair 2 notice ofwhat...the claim isandthe groundsuponwhich itrests.''1#a.at1122.Inaddition, 3 the com plaint m ust ''ata m inim um ,plead 'enough facts to state a claim for reliefthat is 4 plausible onitsface.'''Ld=.(quoting BellAtl.Corn.v.Twomblv,550 U.S.544,127 S.Ct.1955, 5 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). 6 Plaintiff's Com plaintalleges claims forreliefunderthree federalIaws:the Racketeer 7 lnfluenced and CorruptOrganizationsAct(''RICO''),the FairHousingAct,and the FairDebt 8 CollectionPracticesAct.(Complaint(#1)at7).InPlaintiff'sFairDebtCollectionPracticesAct 9 cause ofaction,Plainti; assedsthatLakeside refused to verify an alleged debtitheld against 10 Plaintiff. In addi tion,Plaintiffasserts thatLakeside ''retaliated againstPlaintiff'in the form of 11 a deaththreatand unequalenforcementofthe alleged specialassessment.Ld=.at19. The 12 only allegation againstSalem is thatSalem '' wrongly imposed a specialassessment.'' Ld-. 13 Such an allegation fails to asserteithera cognizable Iegalclaim orsufficientfacts to state a 14 claim againstSalem forviolation ofthe FairDebtCollection Practices Act. 15 Plaintif's Ninth Claim forRelief is forretaliation underthe FairHousing Act. Ld= . 16 Although Plaintil asseds thatthis claim is againstaIIdefendants,Salem is notmentioned in 17 any ofthe allegations. Rather,Plaintil assedsthatLakeside retaliated againstheraftershe 18 filed a HUD com plaintagainstLakeside.Because Plaintifdoes notassertany claim sagainst 19 Salem forretaliation underthe FairHousing Act,she has failed to assed eithera cognizabl e 20 Iegalclaim orsufficientfacts to m aintain this cause ofaction againstSalem . 21 Finally,Plainti ff's Fifteenth Claim for Relief is a RICO cause of action against aII 22 defendants. $$In orderto dism iss a RICO claim ,a districtcoud ...m ustdeterm ine thatthe 23 plaintiffs have failed to allege two orm ore RICO predicate acts,occurring overa significant 24 period oftim e,evidencing a threatofcontinuing activity.' United EnernvOwners Com m .,Inc. 25 v.U.S.Enercv Mgmt.Sys..Inc.,837 F.2d 356,361 (9th Cir.1988). According to the Ninth 26 Circuit,i'Iulnrelatedordiscontinuouspredicateactswillnotsuffice.''Ld=.Moreover,RICO does 27 notcovera single fraud orfraudulentact,but,rather,m ustallege a pattern ofracketeering 28 activity. 18 U.S.C.j 1961(5). Inthismatter,Plaintifffailed to specifyanyconductbySalem 6 1 in herRICO cause ofaction. Speci fically,Plaintiff's com plaint fails to allege a ''pattern of 2 racketeering activity''by Salem because Plaintiffhas asserted thatSalem im posed only a 3 single wrongfulassessmentagainstherwhile she owned the property. As noted above,a 4 single wrongfulact is not sulicient to state a claim under RICO. Moreover, the only 5 defendants identi fied in Plainti ff's RICO claim are Lakeside,Eugene Burger and Eugene 6 BurgerM anagem entCorporation. 7 Thus,based on the foregoing,DefendantSalem Plaza Condom inium Association's 8 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff'sComplaint(#22)isgranted. 9 ll. The Lakeside Defendanl 'and Kern Defendanl 'M otions to Dism iss 10 InadditiontoSalem'sMotionto Dismiss(#22),the remainingdefendantsinthisaction l1 alsofiled m otionsto dism iss.Accordingtothe Kern Defendants'M otionto Dism iss,the claim s 12 asseded againstthe rem ainingdefendants in thisaction m ustbe dism issed because theyare 13 already the subjectofa prioraction pending between the padies. (Motion to Dismiss for 14 Failure to State a Claim and forLack ofSubjectMatterJurisdiction' ,Joinderin Lakeside 15 Defendants'MotiontoDismiss(#23)at9).TheLakeside Defendantsalso notethatthiscase 16 is identicalto the previously filed action exceptforthe addition ofSalem and John Coleman 17 asdefendants.(Motionto DismissPlaintiff'sComplaint(#5)atp.4).InPlaintifrsOpposition, 18 Plaintiffdoes notdirectl y address the rem aining defendants'argum entthatthis case should 19 be dism issed because ofthe priorpending Iitigation.However,Plaintiffdoes requestthatthis 20 case be consolidated w ith the priorcase and states that''Plainti s respeclullyw ishes this Coud 21 take into consideration both cases when rendering a decision w ith regard to defendants' 22 motionsto dismiss.''(Plaintiff's Opposition (#33)at5). 23 A districtcourtretains''broaddiscretion' 'tocontrolitsdocket,and,'Iaperweighingthe 24 equities of(aJcase,''may ''exercise its discretion to dismiss a duplicative Iater-filed action.'' 25 Adamsv.CaliforniaDent.ofHeaIthServ.,487F.3d684,688(9thCir.2007).Accordingtothe 26 Ninth Circuit,tdplaintiffs generally have .no rightto m aintain two separate actions involving the 27 28 7 1 same subjectmatteratthe same time inthe same courtand againstthe same defendant.'''s 2 Ld-.(quoting W alton v,Eaton Corn.,563 F.2d 66,70 (3rd Cir.1977)). 3 In orderto determine ifa sui tisduplicative,a coud 'dborrowls)from the testforclaim 4 preclusion.''Ld=.S'Thus,in assessing whetherthe second action isduplicative ofthe first,we 5 exam ine w hetherthe causes ofaction and the reliefsought,as w ellas the parties orprivies 6 to the action,are the same.'' lj-.at689 (citing The Havtian Renublic,154 U.S.118,124 7 (1894)($There mustbe the same parties,or,atIeast,such as representthe same interests' , 8 there m ustbe the sam e rights asseded and the sam e reliefprayed for;the reliefm ustbe 9 founded upon the sam e facts,and the ...essentialbasis,ofthe reliefsoughtm ustbe the 10 same.''(internalquotation marksomittedl). 1l This Courtwillfirstdeterm ine whetherthe causes ofaction in Plaintiff's two suits are 12 the sam e. i-ro ascedain whethersuccessive causes ofaction are the same,we use the 13 transactiontest' ,developed inthecontextofclaim preclusion.''Ld=.Underthistest,d'lwlhether 14 two events are partofthe sam e transaction orseries depends on whetherthey are related to 15 the same setoffactsandwhethertheycouldconvenientlybetriedtogether.''Ld=.Specifically, 16 the coudshould examine fourcriteria:(1)whether'drightsorinterestsestablished inthe prior 17 judgmentwould be destroyed orimpaired by prosecution ofthe second actioni''(2)whether 18 d'substantiallythe same evidence ispresented in thetwo actionsi''(3)whether''the two suits 19 involve infringementofthe same righf'' ,and (4)whetherii thetwo suits arise outofthe same 20 transactionalnucleusoffacts.''1 J-.(quotingCostantiniv.TransW orldAirlines,681F.2d 1199, . 21 1201-02 (9th Cir.1982)). Notably,''the Iastofthese criteria isthe mostimpodant.''. $.. 22 Here,itis clearthatthe two actions share a com m on transactionalnucleus offacts. 23 Both cases stem from an alleged illegalassessm ent im posed on Plaintiff's property at 24 Lakeside on July 1,2006. Plaintiffhas asserted identicalcauses ofaction based on this 25 alleged illegalassessm entin both cases. In addition,in a m otion to consolidate filed in the 26 prioraction,Plaintiffconcedes thatthe two cases S'presentvirtually identicalfactualand Iegal 27 28 5 In thisregard,theNinthCircuitstatesthataglaintiffisGçrequitedtobringqlIofherclaims againstthe defendantsandtheirpriviesarising t -rom aslngle causeofactlon in one sult.''Ld-s 8 1 2 3 4 issues,allegingsubstantiallythesameviolationsofRICO againstsimilardefendants.''(Notice ofMotionand MotionforLeave to File ConsolidationPursuantto Rule 42(a)(#99)case 3:08cv-176). Moreover,Plaintis concedesthat''these actionsare based on the same facts and subjectmatter.'J#=.Inaddition,Plaintiffseeksthesamereliefinbothcausesofaction.Thus, 5 based on the foregoing,the C ourtfinds thatthe causes ofaction in the tw o cases are identical. 6 The claim s in Plaintiff's complaintinthis action arise outofthe sam e transactionalnucleusof 7 factsasserted in herfirstaction and the rightsestablished by a judgmentinthe firstaction 8 would be destroyed orimpaired by ajudgmentinthe presentaction. 9 In addition to asseding the same causes ofaction,the cases also include the sam e 10 padies. In this regard,although the presentaction asseded claim s againsttwo addi tional 11 defendants,those defendants have now been dism issed from the action.Thus,the rem aining 12 padies are identical. 13 Based on the foregoing,this Coud finds thatthe presentaction is a duplicative Iawsuit 14 to a case already pending before the Court. As a resul t,the Coud w illexercise its discretion 15 and dism issthis action.' Plainti#w illhave a fulland fairoppodunityto Iitigate herclaim s in the 16 first case 3:O8-cv-176, Although Plaintiffargues that she asserted additionalfacts in the 17 presentcase,the Courthas granted Plaintifrs requestto am end hercom plaintin case 3:08- 18 cv-176.(Order(#113)case 3:08-cv-176).BecausePlaintiffhasbeengrantedIeavetoamend 19 hercom plaintin thataction,Plaintil can assed any additionalfacts related to herfederal 20 claim s in thatcase. 21 22 CONCLUSIO N Forthe foregoing reasons,IT IS HEREBY O RDERED thatDefendantSalem Plaza 23 Condominium Association's Motionto Dismiss Plaintiff'sCom plaint(#22)isGRANTED. 24 Itis fudherordered thatDefendants Lakeside Plaza Condom inium Association, Ul6a 25 Christensen,Shane M ichaelG rady,Eugene J.BurgerM anagem ent Corporation, Eugene 26 27 5AccordingtotheNinthCircuit, ' Ctdlismissalofaduplicativelawsuit,moresothantheissuanee of a stay orthe enjoinmentofproceedingsppromotesjudicialeconomy and the comprehcnsive 28 dispositionoflitigqtion.''1(1slnaddition,bydismissingaduplicativeIawsuit,adistrictcoqrtagsûito protectthegartiestrom vexatiousandcxpensivelitigation and to servethesocietalinterestlnbnnging an end to dlsputes.''JJ-. 9 1 Burger, Kevin Berg,DanielN.Joseph,Frank Perau and Rich Svihla's M otion to Dism iss 2 Plaintifrs Complaint(#5)and resubmitted as(#21)is GRANTED, 3 ltisfurtherordered thatDefendants G ayle A.Kern and Gayle A.Kern,Ltd.'s Motion to 4 Dismiss forFailure to State a Claim and forLake ofSubjectMatterJurisdiction' ,Joinderin 5 Lakeside Defendants'Motionto Dismiss (#23)is GRANTED. 6 ItisfurtherorderedthatRequestforJudicialNotice (#24)is GRANTED. 7 The Clerkofthe Courtshallenterjudgmentaccordingl y. 8 Dated this 2nd day ofFebruary,2009. 9 10 11 U nited States D istrictJudge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 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 27 28 11
]]>
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.
