Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MTO Summerlin LLC v. The Shops at Summerlin North, LP

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 19, 2019

MTO SUMMERLIN LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
THE SHOPS AT SUMMERLIN NORTH, LP, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court

         Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF Nos. 4, 8), filed by Defendant The Shops at Summerlin North, LP (“Defendant”). Plaintiff MTO Summerlin LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 15), and Defendant filed a Reply, (ECF Nos. 25, 27).

         Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Countermotion for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 56(d) Discovery, (ECF No. 18). Defendant filed a Response, (ECF Nos. 26, 28), and Plaintiff filed a Reply, (ECF No. 35).

         Also pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Redact and Seal its Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 7), and Motion for Leave to File Redacted Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Redacted Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 56(d) Discovery, [1] (ECF No. 24).

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arises from a commercial lease dispute. (Mot. Summ. J. (“MSJ”) 2:5, ECF No. 8). Plaintiff is a tenant operating MTO Café in Downtown Summerlin, a commercial development located in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Id. 2:5-6); (see Resp. 2:21-24, ECF No. 15). Defendant owns the retail mall area of Downtown Summerlin and is Plaintiff's landlord. (MSJ 2:6-7); (see Resp. 2:4-6). In 2014, Defendant and Plaintiff entered into a commercial lease contract (“MTO Lease”) containing an exclusive use provision (“Exclusive Use Provision”), which states in pertinent part:

In the event Landlord shall lease, after the Effective Date, space in the area of the Shopping Center bounded by the following roads: north of Sage Park Drive, south of Summerlin Centre Drive, west of Summa Drive and east of Pavilion Center Drive, to an occupant other than Tenant primarily operating as a full-service (i.e., table service, orders taken by waitstaff and food delivered to the table) restaurant offering primarily a breakfast menu throughout the entire day with menus similar to tenants currently operating as Egg and I, Broken Yolk, Hash House a Gogo, Waffle House, The Eggworks, Bagel Café or similar establishments (the “Permitted Merchandise”) (i) such circumstance shall not constitute a breach or default by Landlord hereunder; and (ii) Tenant may, after written notice to Landlord and Landlord's failure, within sixty (60) days after Landlord's receipt of such notice, to cause such other occupant(s) to cease offering such Permitted Merchandise for retail sale, reduce the then-effective Minimum Annual Rental otherwise payable hereunder by fifty percent (50%).

(MTO Lease, art. VI § 6.04(a), Ex. B to MSJ, ECF No. 9); (Resp. 3:14-28).

         In December 2017, Makers & Finders Coffee, a restaurant serving breakfast food and other food and beverage items, opened in the retail mall area of Downtown Summerlin. (Resp. 4:11-5:3); (MSJ 4:18). On January 25, 2018, Plaintiff gave notice to Defendant under the Exclusive Use Provision of the MTO Lease, claiming that the menu of Makers & Finders Coffee implicates the restrictions on the Permitted Merchandise, and advised of its intent to reduce its rent by 50 percent. (Resp. 5:23-6:1). However, Defendant did not grant the rent reduction. (See Id. 15:21-24)

         On April 4, 2018, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in Clark County District Court, alleging the following claims: (1) declaratory relief “pursuant to NRS Chapter 30, ” Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) unjust enrichment. (See Compl. 3:10-6:25, 7:9-10, ECF No. 1-2). On April 23, 2018, Defendant removed to the District of Nevada invoking the Court's diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 4-8, ECF No. 1). On April 27, 2018, Defendant moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Countermotion for Rule 56(d) Discovery.

         II. DISCUSSION

         The Court will first address Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Countermotion for Rule 56(d) Discovery. The Court will next consider Defendant's Motions to Seal. Lastly, the Court will address its subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case.

         A. Summary Judgment

         1. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.