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.

Gantchev v. 3rd Generation Inc.

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 26, 2019

GUEORGUI GANTCHEV and GEORGES AND GEORGES LLC dba LV CARS, a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiffs,
v.
3RD GENERATION INC. dba CALIFORNIA AUTO FINANCE, CARLOS NAVAS, DOES I-X and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, Defendants. 3RD GENERATION INC. dba CALIFORNIA AUTO FINANCE, a California corporation, Counterclaimant,
v.
GEORGE’S AND GEORGE’S, LLC d/b/a LV Cars, a Nevada limited liability company; GUEORGUI GANTCHEV, individually, and as Manager for GEORGE’S AND GEORGE’S, LLC d/b/a LV Cars, a Nevada limited liability company; DOES I-X; and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, Counterdefendants.

          ORDER

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DI8STRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before this Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 54) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion and denies Plaintiffs’ motion.

         II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff Gueorgui Gantchev filed his Complaint with Jury Demand against California Auto Finance, L.P. ECF No. 1. On March 22, 2017, Gantchev filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants Carlos Navas and 3rd Generation Inc. d/b/a as California Auto Finance. ECF No. 10. On April 4, 2017, Gantchev filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants. ECF No. 13.

         On April 18, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. Gantchev responded and Defendants replied. ECF Nos. 16, 19.

         On May 3, 2017, Gantchev sought leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. ECF No. 18. Defendants responded and Gantchev replied. ECF Nos. 20, 21.

         On July 14, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Consolidate seeking consolidation of this case, 2:17-cv-00185-RFB-CWH, with related case 2:17-cv-01692-JAD-PAL. ECF No. 23. Gantchev responded and Defendants replied. ECF Nos. 25, 27.

         On October 30, 2017, the Court granted the Motion to Consolidate. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff Georges and Georges LLC, d/b/a LV Cars, thereby joined the suit as a consolidated Plaintiff.[1] On February 8, 2018, the Court granted leave for filing of the Third Amended Complaint and denied the Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. ECF No. 30.

         The Third Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint in this matter, was filed on February 9, 2018. ECF No. 31. The Third Amended Complaint alleges the following claims against all Defendants: (1) Violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681s-2(b) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”); (2) Statutory Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Fraud in Violation of NRS 41.600(2)(e) and NRS 598.0913; (3) Statutory Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Fraud in Violation of NRS 41.600(2)(e) and NRS 598.0915(14)-(16); (4) Statutory Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Fraud in Violation of NRS 41.600 and NRS 598.092; (5) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; and (6) Unjust Enrichment. ECF No. 31.

         Defendants filed an Answer on February 22, 2018. ECF No. 32. In the Answer, Defendant 3rd Generation, Inc. d/b/a California Auto Finance (“CAF”) alleged counterclaims against Plaintiffs for (1) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (2) Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Fraud in Violation of NRS 41.600(2)(e) and NRS 598.0915(15); (3) Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of NRS 598.092(8); and (4) Declaratory Relief. ECF No. 32. Plaintiffs filed an Answer on March 14, 2018. ECF No. 33. The Court entered a scheduling order on April 5, 2018. ECF No. 35.

         Defendants filed their instant Motion for Summary Judgment on December 10, 2018. ECF No. 54. Plaintiffs responded and Defendants replied. ECF No. 58, 61.

         Plaintiffs also filed their instant Motion for Summary Judgment on December 10, 2018. ECF No. 55. Defendants responded and Plaintiffs replied. ECF No. 59, 60.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When considering the propriety of summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789, 793 (9th Cir. 2014). If the movant has carried its burden, the non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts . . . . Where the record taken as a whole ...


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.