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.

Scoyni v. Salvador

United States District Court, D. Idaho

January 22, 2019

NICHOLAS D. SCOYNI, Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL R. SALVADOR, CHRISTOPHER A. SALVADOR, WAYNE J. SALVADOR, WILLIAM WARDWELL, Offspec Solutions, LLC, Offspec Solutions Southeast, et al, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: RE: TEMPORARY STAY (DKT. 7) RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY (DKT. 6) RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE, RENEWED MOTION TO STAY, AND MOTION REQUESTING THE COURT TO REQUIRE PLAINTIFF TO SEEK LEAVE OF COURT BEFORE FILING FURTHER PAPERS (DKT. 11) RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DKT. 10)

          HONORABLE RONALD E. BUSH, CHIEF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Despite the relative recency of this case being filed, it has already involved a flurry of filings. At issue here are (1) the Court's prior order temporarily staying the case (Dkt. 7), (2) Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Participation in a Judicial Settlement Conference (Dkt. 6), (3) Defendants' Motion to Strike, Renewed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Participation in a Judicial Settlement Conference, and Motion Requesting the Court to Require Plaintiff to Seek Leave of Court Before Filing Further Papers (Dkt. 11), and (4) Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. 10). Some of the issues raised in these motions were discussed at a status conference held January 10, 2019, although the conference was not a hearing on any at-issue motions. Having carefully considered the record and otherwise being fully advised, the Court enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order.

         BACKGROUND

         On November 14, 2018, Plaintiff Nicholas D. Scoyni (“Scoyni”), representing himself pro se, filed his Complaint naming as Defendants Daniel R. Salvador, Christopher A. Salvador, Wayne J. Salvador, William Wardwell, Offspec Solutions LLC, and Offspec Solutions Southeast (Dkt. 1). Summonses were issued the same day as to the four individually-named defendants. (Dkt. 1).

         On November 21, 2018, Scoyni filed each of the four summonses returned executed. (Dkt. 2.) He also filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 3) the same day. At that point, no defendant had responded to the Complaint or otherwise appeared.

         On December 6, 2018, Defendant Wardwell filed an Answer (Dkt. 4).

         On December 12, 2018, all defendants joined in a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Participation in a Judicial Settlement Conference[1] (Dkt. 6).

         On December 12, 2018, Scoyni filed a Reply to Defendant Wardwell's Answer (Dkt. 9), which is the subject of Defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. 11). Scoyni moved for default judgment (Dkt. 10) the same day. However, the motion was not entered on the docket until December 19, 2018.

         On December 13, 2018, the Court entered an order temporarily staying the case until the resolution of Defendants' Motion to Stay (Dkt. 7).

         On December 17, 2018, Scoyni filed a second motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 13). He also filed an opposition to Defendants' motion to stay that same day. (Dkt. 14.) Both filings were entered on the docket on December 27, 2018.

         On December 21, 2018, all Defendants except William Wardwell filed a Motion to Strike, Renewed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Participation in a Judicial Settlement Conference, and Motion Requesting the Court to Require Plaintiff to Seek Leave of Court Before Filing Further Papers (Dkt. 11).

         On December 27, 2018, Scoyni filed a Notice of Appeal (Dkt. 12) as to the Court's order temporarily staying the case (Dkt. 7). Ninth Circuit case No. 18-36086 was assigned for the appeal, which remains pending. (Dkt. 16.)

         On January 10, 2019, the Court held a status conference with Scoyni and counsel for the defendants. (Dkt. 15.) At the conference, Scoyni and counsel for Defendant Wardwell orally stipulated that Defendant Wardwell should be dismissed from this action without prejudice and with Defendant Wardwell not seeking to recover any fees or costs connected to his having been sued in this matter. Based on such stipulation, the Court orally ordered such dismissal without prejudice, each party to bear his own ...


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.