Wisniewski v. Vitus Group, Inc., et al.
| June Wisniewski |
| Precision General Commercial Contractors, Inc., Rosebud Forest Products Co., Vitus Group, Inc., Wahoe Mill Partners, LP, Washoe Mill Management, LLC, Evans Property Management, Inc. and Lanz Cabinet Shop, Inc. |
| 3:2011cv00621 |
| August 26, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Reno Office |
| William G. Cobb |
| Larry R. Hicks |
| Civil Rights: Accommodations |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
7
ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation 6 is ADOPTED AND ACCEPTED as follows: (1) Plaintiffs requests to proceed in forma pauperis 1 is GRANTED. The Clerk ofthe Court is instructed to FILE the First A mended Complaint 5 . (2) Plaintiff is allowed to proceed with her claim under the FHAA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3), against Defendants Vitus, Washoe Mill Partners, L.P., Washoe Mill Management, LLC, and EPMI; (3) Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Pr ecision violated the FHAA, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3), is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (4) Plaintiff is allowed to proceed with the claim of violation of the RA, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), against Defendants Vitus, Washoe Mill Partners, L.P.,Washoe Mill Management, LLC, EPMI, and Precision; (5) Plaintiffs claim for violation of 24 C.F.R. § 50.3(i)(1)is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff is given leave to amend to the extent she can allege a colorable claim under a statute that provides a pr ivate right of action under these facts; (6) Plaintiffs claim for violation of 24 C.F.R. § 5.703 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent Plaintiff can allege a colorable violation of a statute conferring a private right of action under the se facts, Plaintiff is given leave to amend;(7) To the extent Plaintiff asserts a claim under the ADA, it is DISMISSED WITHPREJUDICE; (8) Insofar as Plaintiff asserts a violation of a regulatory agreement, this claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ( 9) Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated 24 C.F.R. § 3280.309 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (10) Plaintiffs claim that Defendants violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.1101is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (11) Plaintiff is allowed to proceed with her cl aim for strict products liability design defect and failure to warn regarding the cabinets as to Defendants Lanz and Rosebud. This claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Defendants Vitus, Washoe Mill Partners, LP, Washoe Mill Management, LLC, EPMI, and Precision; (12) Plaintiffs claim of strict liability regarding the carpet installation is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;(13) Plaintiff is allowed to proceed with her claim for negligence (formaldehyde) against Defendants Vitus, Washoe Mill Partners , LP, Washoe Mill Management, LLC, EPMI, Precision, Lanz and Rosebud; (14) Plaintiffs claim for negligence related to asbestos removal is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (15) Plaintiffs claim for fraudulent concealment of the formaldehyde in the cabinet s is allowed to proceed against Defendants Vitus, Washoe Mill Partners, LP, Washoe Mill Management, LLC, EPMI, and Precision; (16) Plaintiffs claim for fraudulent concealment of the asbestos removal is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (17) To the extent Plaintiff asserts a bystander theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress, this claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (18) To the extent Plaintiff asserts a direct theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress, this claim is allowed to p roceed against Defendants Vitus, Washoe Mill Partners, LP, Washoe Mill Management, LLC, EPMI, and Precision; (19) Plaintiff is allowed to proceed with her claim for violation of NRS 118A.510 against Defendants Vitus, Washoe Mill Partners, LP, Washoe Mill Management, LLC, and EPMI; (20) Plaintiff is allowed to proceed with her claim for violation of NRS 118A.500 against Defendants Vitus, Washoe Mill Partners, LP, Washoe Mill Management, LLC, EPMI, and Precision;(21) Plaintiff is allowed to procee d with her claim of breach of the implied warranty of habitability under NRS 118A.355 and NRS 118A.360 against Defendants Vitus, Washoe Mill Partners, LP, Washoe Mill Management, LLC, and EPMI; (22) Plaintiffs claim based on alleged violation of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct by Fahrendorf, Viloria, Oliphant, & Oster, L.L.P., and attorney Roger Doyle, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (23) Plaintiffs claims of criminal conduct are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; (24) Failing to state any claim up on which relief may be granted as to Fahrendorf, Viloria, Oliphant, & Oster, L.L.P., and attorney Roger Doyle, these defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUTPREJUDICE; (25) Plaintiff is advised that if she chooses to file a secondamended complaint, it shall be complete in itself without reference to any previous complaint. Plaintiff is given thirty (30) days from the date of the order adopting the Report and Recommendation within which to file a second amended complaint remedying, if possible, the d efects in the First AmendedComplaint explained above. Any allegations, parties, or requests for relief from prior papers that are not carried forward in the second amended complaint will no longer be before the court. Plaintiff is cautioned that if she fails to file a second amended complaint within the time period specified above, the action will proceed on the First Amended Complaint, and only with respect to those claims which the court allows to proceed. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Copy of First Amended Complaint 5 sent to plaintiff). (Amended Complaint deadline: 12/21/2011.) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 11/17/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
