Smith v. LNV Corporation, Inc., 19-cv-01097-RM. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20190423972
Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RAYMOND P. MOORE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court sua sponte upon review of Plaintiffs' complaint after the withdrawal of reference to the Bankruptcy Court of Adversary Proceeding No. 18-1250-TBM. After such review, and taking judicial notice of Civil Action No. 14-cv-00955-RM-SKC ( Hook I ), the Court finds the complaint in this action (No. 19-cv-01097 ( Hook II )) contains nearly identical allegations as that raised by Plaintiffs in Hook I. In fac
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RAYMOND P. MOORE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court sua sponte upon review of Plaintiffs' complaint after the withdrawal of reference to the Bankruptcy Court of Adversary Proceeding No. 18-1250-TBM. After such review, and taking judicial notice of Civil Action No. 14-cv-00955-RM-SKC ( Hook I ), the Court finds the complaint in this action (No. 19-cv-01097 ( Hook II )) contains nearly identical allegations as that raised by Plaintiffs in Hook I. In fact..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court sua sponte upon review of Plaintiffs' complaint after the withdrawal of reference to the Bankruptcy Court of Adversary Proceeding No. 18-1250-TBM. After such review, and taking judicial notice of Civil Action No. 14-cv-00955-RM-SKC (Hook I), the Court finds the complaint in this action (No. 19-cv-01097 (Hook II)) contains nearly identical allegations as that raised by Plaintiffs in Hook I. In fact, the complaint in this action incorporates Plaintiffs' pleading in Hook I. And, as Plaintiffs are well aware, the Court ruled in favor of LNV in Hook I on Plaintiffs' defenses/counterclaims which are stated to be claims herein. For example, Plaintiffs allege LNV lacks standing and its claims violate the automatic stay and discharge order, arguments which the Court has considered and rejected repeatedly in Hook I. Accordingly, it is ORDERED
(1) That on or before Monday, May 13, 2019, the parties shall SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed based on (a) improper claim splitting, see, e.g., Katz v. Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212, 1217 (10th Cir. 2011); (b) claim and/or issue preclusion due to the Court's rulings and orders in Hook I; and (c) the same rationale and bases as the numerous orders entered by the Court in Hook I which are directed to the same allegations and claims raised in Hook II (e.g., ECF No. 301 (summary judgment regarding Rooker-Feldman doctrine and claim preclusion, and striking of allegations of fraudulent concealment/refusal to disclose relevant documents), No. 303 (summary judgment on priority of interests), No. 306 (Rule 12(c) dismissal and pleading fraud), No. 320 (summary judgment regarding liens, foreclosure, and money judgment), No. 387 (denial of motion to dismiss regarding lack of subject matter jurisdiction, violation of bankruptcy discharge and injunction), No. 404 (summary judgment on additional amounts owed)); and
(2) That the deadline for Defendant LNV to respond to Plaintiffs' complaint is hereby extended to and including 20 days after the Court resolves this show cause order.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
