State v. Michael D Lansky LLC

Full title: State of Arizona, et al., Plaintiff, v. Michael D Lansky LLC, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, District of Arizona

Date published: Jul 5, 2024

No. CV-23-00233-TUC-CKJ (D. Ariz. Jul. 5, 2024)

Opinion

CV-23-00233-TUC-CKJ

07-05-2024

State of Arizona, et al., Plaintiff, v. Michael D Lansky LLC, et al., Defendantss.

Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson, United States District Judge.

ORDER

Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff is correct:

On May 8, 2024, this Court denied Defendant Lansky's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and struck Defendants' supplement to their motion to dismiss. As Defendant Lansky acknowledges, this Court could have, but did not, dismiss Plaintiffs' alter ego count. (Motion at 2.) Instead, this Court granted Plaintiffs permissive leave to amend their Complaint within 14 days, or leave to amend pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) and (b). (Order, 19:2728; 35:6-7) (“Plaintiffs may amend the Complaint to state this claim. See also, Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) and (b)”). Plaintiffs chose not to file an amended complaint immediately, and reserve their right to seek leave pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15 to plead further allegations once they have conducted additional discovery.

(Resp. to Notice/Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 66) at 1 (citing Order (Doc. 64 at 4, 19.) ([Dkt 64] (the “Order”)). To be clear, the Plaintiffs, having failed to file a Amended Complaint, any claims relying on alter ego theories of liability, including piercing the corporate veil (Complaint (Doc. 1) ¶409), are dismissed, without prejudice. There is no corresponding Count in the Complaint dedicated to this theory of liability, therefor, the Court dismisses this as a theory of liability for all Counts.

This does not preclude the Plaintiffs from seeking leave of the Court to amend the Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) or (b).

The Defendants filed an Answer on June 14, 2024. Simultaneous with this Order, the Court issues an Order setting this case for a case management scheduling conference.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 65) is GRANTED and pursuant to the Notice that Plaintiffs did not file an amended Complaint to allege an alter ego theory of liability, including piercing the corporate veil, such claims are dismissed as to all Counts, without prejudice.