Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_23-cv-00233/USCOURTS-azd-4_23-cv-00233-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 485
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

State of Arizona, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael D Lansky LLC, et al.,

Defendantss.

No. CV-23-00233-TUC-CKJ

ORDER 

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, 19:27-

28; 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. 

Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ Document 72 Filed 07/08/24 Page 1 of 2
- 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

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.

Dated this 5th day of July, 2024.

Case 4:23-cv-00233-CKJ Document 72 Filed 07/08/24 Page 2 of 2