Preferred Capital Lending, Inc. et al v. Chakwin, Jr. et al

MOTION to Exclude Plaintiffs' Improper 42 Supplemental Reply

D. Nev.December 13, 2013

Ronald C. Minkoff (admitted pro hac vice) FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ PC 488 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 908-0120 Fax: (212) 593-9175 rminkoff@fkks.com Kimberley R. McGhee (No. 009728) LAW OFFICES OF KIMBERLEY R. MCGHEE, P.C. 8880 W. Sunset Rd., Ste. 250 Las Vegas, NV 891483 Tel: (702) 423-9491 kmcghee@kmcgheelaw.com Attorneys for Defendant Stephen D. Chakwin, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA PREFERRED CAPITAL LENDING, INC., an Illinois Corporation; and PREFERRED CAPITAL LENDING OF NEVADA, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, Plaintiffs, vs. STEPHEN D. CHAKWIN, JR., an Individual; DOES I through X inclusive; ROE BUSINESS ENTITY XI through XX, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:13-CV-00368-GMN-NJK DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE PLAINTIFFS’ IMPROPER SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY [ECF NO. 42] PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 20, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard by the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, located at 333 S. Las Vegas Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89101, Defendant Stephen D. Chakwin, Jr. will, and hereby does, move to exclude Plaintiffs’ Preferred Capital Lending, Inc.’s and Preferred Capital Lending of Nevada, LLC’s filing dated December 9, 2013 Case 2:13-cv-00368-GMN-NJK Document 43 Filed 12/13/13 Page 1 of 2 styled “Supplemental Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Adverse Inference and for Summary Judgment on Plainiff’s First and Second Causes of Action; And Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment” [ECF No. 42] (the “Surreply”) in its entirety because it is procedurally improper. This motion is brought on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ Surreply is not authorized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court’s Local Rules, or by order of this Court. Plaintiffs’ Surreply is therefore procedurally improper and should be stricken or excluded in its entirety. Furthermore, the Surreply must be excluded because it impermissibly seeks to advance new, inconsistent legal arguments and includes as exhibits documents that Plaintiffs failed to produce at any time during discovery. In the alternative, Defendant respectfully seeks leave of this Court to file an appropriate response to Plaintiffs’ Surreply. This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the pleadings and other papers filed in this action, and upon such other argument and evidence as may be presented to the Court. DATED: December 13, 2013 New York, New York FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ PC By: /s/ Ronald C. Minkoff Ronald C. Minkoff 488 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 908-0120 Fax: (212) 593-9175 rminkoff@fkks.com Attorneys for Defendant Stephen D. Chakwin, Jr. - and – Kimberly R. McGhee, Esq. 8880 W. Sunset Rd., Ste. 250 Las Vegas, NV 89148 702-423-3491Tel 702-253-7565 Fax Kmcghee@kmcgheelaw.com Case 2:13-cv-00368-GMN-NJK Document 43 Filed 12/13/13 Page 2 of 2