`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
`
`MARTIN S. FRIEDLANDER, individually,
`and as Assignee fo the Successor Trustee of the
`Legal Defense and Maintenance Trust
`of California, a Citizen of California; and
`as an Express Third Party Beneficiary of the
`Legal Defense and Maintenance
`Trust of California; The Successor in
`Interest to All the Claims, Assets, Rights, and
`Causes of Action Herein Asserted on Behalf of
`Santa Fe Business Park LLC, Summit
`Floormart LLC, Summit Valdes Business
`Park, LLC, Summit Center LLC, El Llano
`Summit Business Center LLC, El Llano
`Summit Caja Del Rio LLC, and Jeffrey
`Potter,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`RICHARD P. COOK; EL LLANO COMPANY, INC.;
`VALLEY NATIONAL BANK; COMEAU, MALDEGEN,
`TEMPLEMAN & INDALL, LLP; GRAY HANDY;
`PAULA COOK; JOHN PATTERSON; ROBERT ENGEL;
`VERN BOWERS; SONNY OTERO d/b/a OTERO
`CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; PHASE ONE REALTY;
`ERNEST (“ERNIE ROMERO”); W. JAMES METHANY;
`and SARCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` No. CIV 06-1160 JB/DJS
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants Sarco Construction Company,
`
`El Llano Company, Inc, and Richard [Cook]’s Motion and Memorandum to Dismiss and to Strike
`
`the Complaint, filed January 17, 2007 (Doc. 28). The Court held a hearing on the motion on
`
`September 25, 2007. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should dismiss Plaintiff Martin
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-01160-JB-SMV Document 77 Filed 09/30/07 Page 2 of 3
`
`S. Friedlander’s Complaint against Defendants Sarco, El Llano, and Richard Cook for failure to
`
`comply with rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (ii) whether the Court should strike the
`
`Complaint or portions of it because of rule 12(f)’s prohibition against redundant and impertinent
`
`material; and (iii) whether the Court should require Friedlander to file a more definite statement.
`
`Because the Court has already granted in part the Defendants Sarco Construction Company, El
`
`Llano Company, Inc. and Richard Cook’s Joint Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Doc. 26), see
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order, filed September 30, 2007 (Doc. 76), and decided to abstain
`
`pending resolution of the pending state case involving the same or similar claims, see Doc. 76 at 3-5,
`
`the Court will deny this motion as moot without prejudice to these Defendants re-raising these issues
`
`if and when the Court lifts the stay.
`
`IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants Sarco Construction Company, El Llano Company,
`
`Inc., and Richard [Cook]’s Motion to Dismiss and to Strike the Complaint is denied as moot without
`
`prejudice to these Defendants re-raising these issues if and when the Court lifts the stay in this case
`
`to permit litigation against these Defendants.
`
`___________________________________
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Parties and Counsel:
`
`Martin S. Friedlander
`Los Angeles, California
`
`Plaintiff Pro Se
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-01160-JB-SMV Document 77 Filed 09/30/07 Page 3 of 3
`
`Paul Maestas
`Wayne R. Suggett
`Maestas & Suggett, P.C.
`Albuquerque, New Mexico
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Richard P. Cook,
`Sarco Construction Company, and
`El Llano Company
`
`Eric M. Sommer
`Sommer, Udall, Hardwick, Ahern & Hyatt, LLP
`Santa Fe, New Mexico
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Valley National Bank
`
`Jim Dines
`Michael A. Gross
`Steven J. Leibel
`Dines & Gross, P.C.
`Albuquerque, New Mexico
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Comeau, Maldegen,
`Templeman & Indall, LLP, Paula Cook, and Grey Handy
`
`Briggs F. Cheney
`Law Office • Briggs F. Cheney
`Albuquerque, New Mexico
`
`Attorneys for Defendant John Patterson
`
`J. E. Gallegos
`Gallegos Law Firm, P.C.
`Santa Fe, New Mexico
`
`Attorney for Defendant Sonny Otero d/b/a Otero Construction Company
`
`David A. Grammar III
`Aldridge, Grammar, Jeffrey & Hammer, P.A.
`Albuquerque, New Mexico
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Phase One Realty, Inc.,
`Ernest “Ernie” Romero, and W. James Metheny
`
`-3-
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
