Also pending in this instance is related moves, which will be the subject of another purchase, in addition to a motion for summary judgment by Defendant John Du Wors. Having considered the pleadings, the parties’ moving papers and opposition thereto, along with the rest of the record, the Court grants Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and denies Plaintiff’s petition for leave to amend.
HPV was integrated on or about May 3, 2010 by various friends of Mark Phillips, a non-party who had been convicted in a separate criminal proceeding on counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering caused by theft by his former firm MOD Systems, Inc..
In 2009 and 2010, in addition to the subject of criminal identification, he contacted buddies including Defendants Chad and Elizabeth Rudkins (the”Rudkins”) for help in funding his lawsuit expenses and protecting his own intellectual property. Dkt. #15, First Amended Complaint (“FAC), 9, 10. Phillips subsequently licensed his intellectual property (“IP”) to HPV, that had been to increase funds by prosecuting offenses of the IP.
8 Easy Facts About John Du Wors Practicing Attorney Shown
In 11. Plaintiff believes that the stocks of HPV were split between Chad Rudkin and non-parties Stephen Schweickert, Doug Lower, and Mark Phillips. Id. Desiring to assist Phillips and further attempts to market his IP, Plaintiff allegedly made arrangements in April 2011 with then HPV C.E.O. Stephen Schweickert to loan $200,000 to HPV.
In p. 3 & 15. Plaintiff alleges that the counsel, Defendant John Du Wors, who simultaneously served as an attorney for Phillips of HPV, made willful misrepresentations to her in order to induce her own investment. Id. at 16-18. She asserts that Du Wors ready the promissory note on behalf of HPV, which stated that”the Lender was forced to enter this agreement with the mutual agreement and stipulation an 8 percent fully paid passive membership involvement in that partnership entity known as Hunts Point Venture Group, LLC”HPVG” will be granted.” Id.
Plaintiff further claims that she was told by Stephen Schweickert that her loan would enable HPV to form HPVG and that she’d be given an”8 percent passive membership” with no respect to HPV’s obligation on the notice. Id. At 26. Upon receiving a copy of Joint Participation Agreement and the Promissory Note from HPVG and HPV, $200,000 was wired by the plaintiff on April 26, 2011 to an HPV account.
An Unbiased View of John Du Wors Attorney At Law
At 27; see id. at Ex. A. Plaintiff asserts that she has not obtained any scheduled payments from HPV on her note or any written documentation regarding her possession of shares in HPVG. Id. She filed the second lawsuit seeking to recover her damages.
The Court entered a Scheduling Order setting a deadline for joinder of parties of October 11, 2013. Dkt. #24. Upon the appointment of a general recipient on behalf of Defendant HPV at Case No this activity had been automatically stayed on November 25, 2013.
Sup. Ct.). See Dkt. #26. Plaintiff has filed a proof of claim in the receivership actions seeking to recover interest and principal on her loan from HPV. See Dkt. #28. 1. Upon lifting of the automatic stay, the Rudkins filed the instant Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to all claims asserted against them, in the alternative, for summary judgment to the extent which Plaintiff seeks to assert derivative claims as a shareholder of HPV.
Not known Factual Statements About John Du Wors Lawyer
#27. See Dkt. 29, ## 28.
Dkt. #30. The rest of the discovery motions relate to Defendant Du Wors. Du Wors moves the Court to induce Plaintiff to respond to his interrogatories and requests for production (Dkt. # 54), while Plaintiff moves the Court to compel Du Wors to respond to her second set of discovery requests served on June 11, 2014 (Dkt.
Before the September 15, 2014 deadline for discovery, Du Wors filed the depositions of both Stephen and Joyce Schweickert a motion seeking to finish two discovery events past this deadline and obtainment of files pursuant to third-party subpoenas on service providers. Dkt. #61.
A Biased View of John Du Wors
See Dkt. 67, ## 63. A motion was filed. The instantaneous Order considers all other motions in turn. DISCUSSION I. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. #27) A. Legal Standard”After the pleadings are closed but early enough to not delay trial party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.
