Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

14-1589 - RED BARN MOTORS, INC. et al v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC. et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
14-1589 - RED BARN MOTORS, INC. et al v. NEXTGEAR CAPITAL, INC. et al
December 11, 2015
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 10 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim be denied and 12 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim be denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 12/11/2015.(CBU)
January 13, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS NextGear's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for Failure to State a Claim [dkt. 10] is DENIED and that First Choice's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May be Granted, or, Alternatively, Motion to Dismiss the Individual Plaintiffs and Motion for a More Definite Statement [dkt. 12] is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/13/2016.(TRG)
May 2, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER denying 119 Motion to Stay Discovery Pending a Ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue on 5/2/2016. (CBU)
March 27, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY - Upon close review of the parties' briefing, the Court determines that the Defendants' Reply Brief did not inject new evidence, arguments, or issues into the Motion to Dismiss. Instead, the Reply Brief provided the Defendants' response to the arguments advanced by the Plaintiffs in their Response Brief. The limited circumstances for allowing a surreply--to address new arguments or evidence raised in the reply brief--are not present in this case, and as a result, the Court DENIES the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Surreply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 137). (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/27/2017. (JLS)
March 27, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS - For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 126) is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and constructive fraud claim against NextGear survive the Motion to Dismiss. The substantive RICO claim against NextGear, Cox Automotive, and Mr. Wick also survives dismissal. The claims for RICO conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference are dismissed. The Court concludes, however, that these dismissals should be with without prejudice. Fed. R., Civ. P. 15 directs that courts should "freely" grant leave to amend a pleading "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(2). If in fact, Plaintiffs' can plead sufficient facts to support their claims for RICO conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference they are granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Entry. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/27/2017. (JLS)
June 29, 2017
PDF | More
ENTRY denying Plaintiffs' 205 Motion to Strike Defendants' Notice of Additional Authority. See Entry. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/29/2017. (SWM)
July 2, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EXPERT TESTIMONY - 183 Motion in Limine is DENIED. An order in limine is not a final, appealable order. Evidentiary rulings regarding Hoffman's anticipated testimony are deferred until trial so that questions of foundation, relevancy, and prejudice can be resolved in context. If the parties believe that specific evidence is inadmissible during the course of the trial, counsel may raise specific objections to that evidence. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/2/2017. (LBT)
January 12, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS - For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' Motion to Reconsider (Filing No. 228) and decertifies the Plaintiffs' breach of contract and RICO claims. This litigation will no longer proceed as a class action. The Court DENIES as moot the Defendants' Motion to Narrow Class (Filing No. 237), the Defendants' Objections to Magistrate Judge's Orders (Filing No. 240; Filing No. 255), and the Plaintiffs'Motion to Proceed with Class Notice (Filing No. 249). Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/12/2018. (MEJ)
January 19, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER - 218 Motion in Limine is denied as to the expert opinions of Dan Wojcik. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 1/19/2018. (MEJ)