Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01360/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01360-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

SANDPIPER RESORTS )

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et )

al., )) Plaintiffs, ) 2:08-cv-01360 JWS ) vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION ) GLOBAL REALTY INVESTMENTS, )

LLC, et al., ) [Re: Motion at Docket 308, ) and Inquiry Re Trial Date] Defendants. ))

At docket 308, plaintiffs Sandpiper Resorts Development Corporation and

Dourian Foster Investments Incorporated (“collectively “Plaintiffs”) move for an award of

prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees against defaulted defendants Global Realty

Investment, LLC; Caroline Hartman-Altenbrand; Kelly Altenbrand; and Toscana

Developers, LLC. At docket 313 defendants Cynthia Estes and Estes Development,

LLC (collectively “Estes”) ask the court to allow them to “reserve the right to respond to

[the motion at docket 308]” until after the court decides whether Estes Development is

liable for the judgment already entered on a veil piercing theory. At docket 314,

Plaintiffs do not oppose affording Estes an opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs’ request

for attorneys’ fees until after the veil piercing issue has been resolved. Rather than

Case 2:08-cv-01360-JWS Document 317 Filed 01/24/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

leave the motion at docket 308 live on the docket, the court hereby denies the motion at

docket 308 without prejudice and with leave to renew, and, if appropriate, expand the

motion to include a request for an award against Estes Development, LLC, following

resolution of the claim against it.

The parties have previously indicated that to address the veil piercing issue they

will need a two-day trial to the court. Counsel will please confer and then within seven

days from the date of this order advise the court whether they can be available for the

two-day trial during the weeks of April 1 [the court is not available April 4 and5], April 15,

or April 29, 2013, and if so, identify all of the dates that are mutually acceptable. 

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2013.

 /S/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-

Case 2:08-cv-01360-JWS Document 317 Filed 01/24/13 Page 2 of 2