United States District Court, D. Nevada
MARIAN K. PORTER, Plaintiff,
SHYAM K. CHETAL, individually and d/b/a ADVANTAGE REAL ESTATE PRO; UNITED CAPITAL INVESTMENT, INC. d/b/a NEVADA UNITED CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, INC.; SMARTTOUCH SYSTEMS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Defendants.
R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is plaintiff Marian Porter's motion for entry
of judgment. ECF No. 100. Defendants Shyam K. Chetal and
United Capital Investments, Inc. (“United”) have
failed to respond.
parties are aware of the factual background of this case,
which the court discussed in its last order. See ECF
No. 95. In August of 2014, Porter moved for summary judgment
against all defendants, which the court granted only on her
breach-of-contract claim against Chetal and
United but denied on all other claims. ECF Nos.
39, 44. After the court notified Porter that it intended to
dismiss this action for want of prosecution (ECF No. 93), she
timely filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss her remaining
claims (ECF No. 94), which the court granted (ECF No. 95).
Because the court's grant of partial summary judgment on
Porter's contract claim only addressed liability and did
not reach the issue of damages, the court ordered Porter,
Chetal, and United to submit a proposed joint pretrial order
on this sole remaining issue. ECF No. 95 at 5.
none of the parties submitted the proposed order, the court
ordered them to attend a telephonic status conference on
February 8, 2017. ECF No. 97. Due to the fact that several
court orders mailed to Chetal had been returned as
undeliverable, the court also ordered plaintiffs counsel to
make a good-faith attempt to ascertain the availability and
address of Chetal and to provide him with a copy of the
status-conference order. Id.
Chetal nor any other representative for himself or United
appeared at the status conference. ECF No. 99. The court
therefore ordered Porter to move for entry of judgment no
later than February 18, 2017, and to again make a good-faith
attempt to locate Chetal and serve him with her motion.
Id. The court set February 28, 2017, as the deadline
for Chetal's reply. Id.
timely filed the instant motion (ECF No. 100) and also filed
a certificate of service, attesting to having served Chetal
at his last known address (ECF No. 102). Chetal has failed to
reply to Porter's motion.
has moved for entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 54(a) and (b). After examining Porter's
points and authorities and conducting its own research, the
court has concluded that Rule 54 is an inappropriate
procedural mechanism under these circumstances; the court
never granted summary judgment on damages for the
breach-of-contract claim, which, as stated in the court's
last order, was the only remaining issue for trial.
Therefore, the court cannot currently enter judgment on
the court is giving defendants Chetal and United notice of
its intent to sua sponte enter summary judgment in
favor of Porter and against them. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(f). Chetal and Porter have 21 days from the date of
this order to show cause as to why the court should not grant
Porter summary judgment on damages on her breach-of-contract
claim in the amount of two-hundred million dollars ($200,
court intends to enter summary judgment based on the
following undisputed facts:
• The contract price for the mining rights at issue was
$220, 000, 000.00.
• As part of thi s contract, Chetal and United were to
pay the Bureau of Land Management $276, 480.00 in licensing
fees by September 3, 2013.
• Chetal and United breached this contract when
Chetal's check for the licensing fees was rejected twice
due to insufficient funds, resulting in ...