Goldwater Bank v. Elizarov

Full title: GOLDWATER BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. ARTUR ELIZAROV; UNISON AGREEMENT…

Court: United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Jan 31, 2024

5:21-cv-00616-JWH-SP (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2024)

Opinion

5:21-cv-00616-JWH-SP

01-31-2024

GOLDWATER BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, v. ARTUR ELIZAROV; UNISON AGREEMENT CORP.; SCOTT HOWLETT; BANK OF THE WEST; and ILYA ALEKSEYEFF, Defendants. SCOTT HOWLETT, Crossclaimant, v. ARTUR ELIZAROV; GOLDWATER BANK, N.A,; and ROES 1-10, Crossdefendants. ARTUR ELIZAROV, Third Party Plaintiff, v. ORANGE COAST TITLE COMPANY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INC. Third Party Defendant. ARTUR ELIZAROV, Counterclaimant, v. GOLDWATER BANK, N.A.; KENT WIECHERT; PETER HILL; WAGNER HICKS, PLLC; SEAN WAGNER; and DEREK BAST, Counterdefendants. ARTUR ELIZAROV, Crossclaimant, v. UNISON AGREEMENT CORP., Crossdefendant. ARTUR ELIZAROV, Crossclaimant, v. SCOTT HOWLETT, Crossdefendant.

JOHN W. HOLCOMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGMENT

JOHN W. HOLCOMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pursuant to the “Minute Order on Hearing Re: Motion of Artur Elizarov for Entry of Judgment [ECF No. 357],” and in accordance with Rule 58(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:

1. This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the above-captioned action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

2. The operative pleadings in this case are:

a. the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 44] filed by Plaintiff Goldwater Bank, N.A.;

b. the First Amended Cross-Complaint [ECF No. 97] filed by Crossclaimant Scott Howlett;

c. the Third-Party Complaint [ECF No. 69] filed by Third-Party Plaintiff Artur Elizarov;

d. the Counterclaim [ECF No. 99] filed by Counterclaimant Artur Elizarov;

e. the First Amended Crossclaim (the “Amended Crossclaim”) [ECF No. 143] filed by Crossclaimant Artur Elizarov; and f. the Crossclaim [ECF No. 117] filed by Crossclaimant Artur Elizarov.

3. All claims, counterclaims, crossclaims, and third-party claims asserted in this action have been DISMISSED. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED.

4. Other than potential post-judgment remedies (including those provided in Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), to the extent that any party requests any other form of relief, such request is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.