Rich Media Club et al v. Mentchoukov et al, No. 2:2011cv01202 - Document 201 (D. Utah 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying without prejudice 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying without prejudice 5 Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Replevin. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 07/27/2012. (tls)
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION RICH MEDIA CLUB, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, et al., Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND MOTION FOR PREJUDGMENT WRIT OF REPLEVIN vs. NIKOLAI MENTCHOUKOV, et al., Case No. 2:11-CV-1202 TS Defendants. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary Injunction1 and Motion for Writ of Replevin2 on January 3, 2012. Soon thereafter, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss along with a motion to stay consideration of the preliminary judgment and replevin motions until the Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss. 1 Docket No. 5. 2 Docket No. 5 1 Initially, the Court stated that it would hear the motion to dismiss together with the injunction and replevin motions in March. After some back and forth from the parties, the Court rescheduled the injunction and replevin hearings, and held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss on March 28, 2012. On April 3, 2012, the Court issued its Memorandum Decision on Defendants Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed the large majority of Plaintiffs claims, but gave Plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint. Among the rejected claims was Plaintiffs replevin action, which was dismissed without prejudice. Based on that holding, the Court will deny Plaintiffs Motion for Writ of Replevin without prejudice. Plaintiffs also included an injunction claim in their Complaint. In its Memorandum Decision, the Court stated that it would consider the briefing on the independent injunction motion at a later date. On April 26, the Court set a hearing on the injunction motion. On April 30, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to withdraw the injunction motion. On May 3, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The parties agree that the injunction motion should be withdrawn. However, Defendants seek to have the Court dismiss the motion with prejudice. Based on the parties stipulation, the Court will order that the Motion be dismissed. However, the Court sees no cause for denying Plaintiffs the opportunity to pursue a preliminary injunction based on their amended allegations. To the extent Plaintiffs injunction motion may rely on claims or theories already rejected by the Court in its Memorandum Decision, the injunction must of course be denied on those grounds. However, to the extent that the 2 amendments to the Complaint may support an injunction, the Court will consider that claim as it arises. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Replevin (Docket No. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in light of the Court s Memorandum Decision dated April 3, 2012. DATED July 27, 2012. BY THE COURT: _____________________________________ TED STEWART United States District Judge 3