WEINFELD v. MINOR, 3:14-cv-00513-RCJ-WGC. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20151116859
Visitors: 7
Filed: Nov. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . Sixteen individuals and Congregation Beth Joseph brought this shareholder derivative action in the Eastern District of New York 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
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . Sixteen individuals and Congregation Beth Joseph brought this shareholder derivative action in the Eastern District of New York 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 l..
More
ORDER
ROBERT C. JONES, District Judge.
Sixteen individuals and Congregation Beth Joseph brought this shareholder derivative action in the Eastern District of New York 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, and Defendants have moved to dismiss it. Because Plaintiffs have not timely responded within fourteen days of the October 2, 2015 motion to dismiss, see Local R. 7-2(b), the Court grants the motion, see Local R. 7-2(d).
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 57) is GRANTED, and the Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
