Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

WEINFELD v. MINOR, 3:14-cv-00513-RCJ-WGC. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20160630f16 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . This is a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Precious Minerals Mining & Refining Corp. ("PMMR") against PMMR President Bill Minor and PMMR Board Members John Reynolds and Walter Marting. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York transferred the case to this District under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) as an alternative to a request to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The transferor court did not rule on c
More

ORDER

This is a shareholder derivative action on behalf of Precious Minerals Mining & Refining Corp. ("PMMR") against PMMR President Bill Minor and PMMR Board Members John Reynolds and Walter Marting. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York transferred the case to this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) as an alternative to a request to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The transferor court did not rule on contemporaneous requests to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") for failure to comply with Rules 8(a), 9(b), and 23.1(b). This Court dismissed the FAC under the latter rule and Rule 11(a) because it was not verified or even signed by any attorney. Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), and Defendants moved to dismiss it. The Court ruled that the SAC was not precluded by either of two previous actions litigated in the New York and Nevada state courts but dismissed the SAC, with leave to amend, because it failed to comply with Rule 23.1's requirement to plead demand and futility with particularity in shareholder derivative litigation. Plaintiffs have filed the Third Amended Complaint, and Defendants have moved to dismiss it for failure to cure the defects with respect to Rule 23.1 and failure to state a claim. A response was due on June 6, 2016, but as of June 7, 2016, Plaintiffs had not timely responded. The Court therefore grants the motion. See Local R. 7-2(d).

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 92) and the Motion to Seal (ECF No. 95) are GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer