`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
`
`MARTIN S. FRIEDLANDER, individually and
`as assignee of 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 Investment Company LLC,
`Summit Business Center LLC, El Llano Summit
`Caja Del Rio LLC, and Jeffrey W. Patter,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`RICHARD P. COOK; EL LLANO COMPANY, INC.;
`VALLEY NATIONAL BANK; COMEAU, MALDEGEN,
`TEMPLEMAN & INDALL, LLP; GRAY HANDY;
`PAULA A. COOK; JOHN PATTERSON; ROBERT
`ENGEL; VERN BOWERS; SONNY OTERO DBA
`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 Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance to
`
`Conduct Discover[y] concerning the Receiver’s Motion, filed February 5, 2007 (Doc. 38). The
`
`Court held a hearing on the motion on September 25, 2007. The primary issue is whether the Court
`
`should defer ruling on the Motion by Defendants Phase One Realty, Inc., Ernest (“Ernie”) Romero,
`
`and W. James Metheny to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a Stay of Proceedings or for
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-01160-JB-SMV Document 75 Filed 09/30/07 Page 2 of 3
`
`Abstention, (Doc. 13), until Plaintiff Martin S. Friedlander can conduct discovery regarding the
`
`issues related to the motion to dismiss. Because the Court did not convert the Receiver’s motion
`
`to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, and because the Court did not consider the affidavits
`
`attached to the Receiver’s motion to dismiss in ruling on the motion to dismiss, the Court concludes
`
`that Friedlander does not need discovery before it rules on the Receiver’s motion.
`
`The Court intends to allow discovery by all parties after it allows some time for the
`
`Bankruptcy Court in the Potter bankruptcy to resolve certain issues that may impact on Friedlander’s
`
`standing to bring any claims in this case. The Court will review the situation at a telephone
`
`conference set for November 26, 2007. No one, including Friedlander, has indicated a need or
`
`desire to conduct any discovery before that date.
`
`IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance to Conduct Discover[y]
`
`Concerning the Receiver’s Motion is denied as moot.
`
`
`
` ___________________________________
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Parties and Counsel:
`
`Martin S. Friedlander
`Los Angeles, California
`
`Plaintiff Pro Se
`
`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
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 1:06-cv-01160-JB-SMV Document 75 Filed 09/30/07 Page 3 of 3
`
`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
`Sheehan Sheehan & Stelzner
`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
