Meridian PO Finance LLC v. OTR Tire Group Incorporated

D. Arizona

Meridian PO Finance LLC v. OTR Tire Group Incorporated

DecidedAugust 10, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-00446

StatusUnknown

This text of Meridian PO Finance LLC v. OTR Tire Group Incorporated (Meridian PO Finance LLC v. OTR Tire Group Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meridian PO Finance LLC v. OTR Tire Group Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Meridian PO Finance LLC, No. CV-20-00446-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 OTR Tire Group Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Defendant Chris Dellinges Moves to Dismiss the Complaint against him for these 16 reasons: 17 1. “[F]ailure to state a claim on which [relief] would be granted” under Rule 18 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. (Doc. 15 at 2 ¶ 1.) 19 2. “Plaintiff’s claims of fraud and RICO violations against Defendant Dellinges 20 should be dismissed in that they fail to meet the heightened standard of particularity as 21 required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).” (Id. at 2 ¶ 3.) 22 3. “[L]ack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant Dellinges” under Rule 23 12(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. (Id. at 2 ¶¶ 4.) 24 4. That venue is more appropriate in the United States District Court for the 25 Northern or Southern District of Texas. (Id. at 2 ¶¶ 2, 5.) 26 Mr. Dellinges does not provide any argument or legal authorities to support any of 27 these theories. Nor does he state with specificity why the Complaint is deficient for any of 28 the grounds asserted. “[A] party waives those arguments that its opening brief inadequately || addresses.” Harsco Corp. v. Renner, 475 F.3d 1179, 1190 (10th Cir. 2007). The Motion 2|| does not develop any of the legal theories raised in it and so the Court declines to consider 3 || them. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that, as far as the Motion seeks dismissal under Rule 9(b) and 6|| Rule 12(b)(2) and (6), Fed. R. Civ. P. it is denied. (Part of Doc. 15.) 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as far as the Motion seeks a transfer of venue, 8 || the Court will consider that request together with Defendant XPO Global, et al.’s, pending 9|| Motion for Transfer of Venue or Stay (Doc. 25). (Part of Doc. 15.) 10 Dated this 10th day of August, 2020. 11 WMichadl T. dibunde Michael T. Liburdi 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Meridian PO Finance LLC, No. CV-20-00446-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 OTR Tire Group Incorporated, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Defendant Chris Dellinges Moves to Dismiss the Complaint against him for these 16 reasons: 17 1. “[F]ailure to state a claim on which [relief] would be granted” under Rule 18 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. (Doc. 15 at 2 ¶ 1.) 19 2. “Plaintiff’s claims of fraud and RICO violations against Defendant Dellinges 20 should be dismissed in that they fail to meet the heightened standard of particularity as 21 required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).” (Id. at 2 ¶ 3.) 22 3. “[L]ack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant Dellinges” under Rule 23 12(b)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P. (Id. at 2 ¶¶ 4.) 24 4. That venue is more appropriate in the United States District Court for the 25 Northern or Southern District of Texas. (Id. at 2 ¶¶ 2, 5.) 26 Mr. Dellinges does not provide any argument or legal authorities to support any of 27 these theories. Nor does he state with specificity why the Complaint is deficient for any of 28 the grounds asserted. “[A] party waives those arguments that its opening brief inadequately || addresses.” Harsco Corp. v. Renner, 475 F.3d 1179, 1190 (10th Cir. 2007). The Motion 2|| does not develop any of the legal theories raised in it and so the Court declines to consider 3 || them. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that, as far as the Motion seeks dismissal under Rule 9(b) and 6|| Rule 12(b)(2) and (6), Fed. R. Civ. P. it is denied. (Part of Doc. 15.) 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, as far as the Motion seeks a transfer of venue, 8 || the Court will consider that request together with Defendant XPO Global, et al.’s, pending 9|| Motion for Transfer of Venue or Stay (Doc. 25). (Part of Doc. 15.) 10 Dated this 10th day of August, 2020. 11 WMichadl T. dibunde Michael T. Liburdi 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Meridian PO Finance LLC v. OTR Tire Group Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meridian-po-finance-llc-v-otr-tire-group-incorporated-azd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack