Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

WINDMILL & EASTERN, LLC. v. SHAKIB, 2:11-cv-1082-LDG-PAL. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20120327c99 Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER LLOYD D. GEORGE, District Judge. This is a declaratory judgment action seeking resolution of whether the defined pension plan was governed by ERISA at the time defendants pledged the CD as security for the loan pursuant to the pledge agreement, and assuming that the plan is governed by ERISA, whether the CD is a protected asset. Before the court are plaintiff Windmill & Eastern, LLC's, motion for summary judgment (#12, response #14, reply #18, supplement #24) and defendants' counter moti
More

ORDER

LLOYD D. GEORGE, District Judge.

This is a declaratory judgment action seeking resolution of whether the defined pension plan was governed by ERISA at the time defendants pledged the CD as security for the loan pursuant to the pledge agreement, and assuming that the plan is governed by ERISA, whether the CD is a protected asset. Before the court are plaintiff Windmill & Eastern, LLC's, motion for summary judgment (#12, response #14, reply #18, supplement #24) and defendants' counter motion for summary judgment (#15, supplement #24).1 On February 24, 2012, defendants filed a notice of bankruptcy for debtor Simon K. Shakib, who is named individually and as co-trustee of the Nevada K, LLC. The court must defer resolution of the summary judgment motions until a determination is made regarding the effect that the bankruptcy filing has on this case. The court will deny the pending motions without prejudice to their reinstatement after such determination, and will direct the parties to file briefs on the issue.

THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that plaintiff Windmill & Eastern, LLC's, motion for summary judgment (#12) and defendants' counter motion for summary judgment (#15) are DENIED without prejudice subject to their reinstatement following a determination regarding the effect that the bankruptcy filing has on this case.

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that the parties shall have sixty (60) days in which to file supplemental briefs regarding the effect that the bankruptcy filing has on this case.

FootNotes


1. The docket does not reflect the filing of a response to the counter-motion.
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