Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00457/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00457-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Karlsson Group, Inc., et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Langley Farm Investments, LLC, et

al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0457-PCT-PGR

 

 ORDER

On May 16, 2007, the Langley and Van Wagner parties filed a Motion to

Dismiss the Complaint, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Stay Proceedings, and on

June 29, 2007, the parties, with the exception of Rensko, Inc. and Millard

“Mickey” Oksner, stipulated to staying these proceedings, which stay

encompassed the prosecution of the motion to dismiss. The stipulation was

based on the pendency of a related case, Langley Farm Investments, LLC v.

Petrified Forest Ranch Co., 1 CA-CV 06-0295, before the Arizona Court of

Appeals. The stipulation stated that the state court appeal concerned the issue of

whether Langley Farm Investments had an enforceable contract with Petrified

Forest Ranch and was thus central to the claims made by the Karlsson parties in

this action. On February 7, 2008, the Langley and Van Wagner parties filed both

a notice stating that the Arizona Court of Appeals has rendered its decision and a

Case 2:07-cv-00457-PGR Document 91 Filed 02/12/08 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

- 2 -

motion requesting that the briefing on their motion to dismiss now be allowed to

proceed.

Since the Court has no information at all before it as to how the Arizona

Court of Appeals resolved the issue before it or how that decision, stated to be

central to this action, impacts the pending motion to dismiss, the Court concludes

that the pending motion should be denied without prejudice to being re-filed in a

revised format that takes into account whatever decision was rendered by the

Arizona Court of Appeals. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Langley and Van Wagner Parties’ Request to

Move Forward with the Langley and Van Wagner Parties’ Motion to Dismiss (doc.

#90) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Langley and Van Wagner Parties’

Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Stay

Proceedings (doc. #11) is denied without prejudice to a revised motion to dismiss

being filed that incorporates the legal and factual impact on this action of the

decision rendered by the Arizona Court of Appeals in Langley Farm Investments,

LLC v. Petrified Forest Ranch Co., 1 CA-CV 06-0295. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any revised motion to dismiss shall be

filed no later than March 17, 2008.

DATED this 11th day of February, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00457-PGR Document 91 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 2