Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dominic Novak, et al v. Douglas A. Lines

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


July 27, 2011

DOMINIC NOVAK, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DOUGLAS A. LINES, P.C., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: John M. Facciola United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

As indicated at the hearing held today, I wish counsel to brief more thoroughly the following questions:

1. Does this case present a case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution, or is the potential harm to be done by defendant Douglas A. Lines' prosecution of the case in the Commonwealth, Douglas A. Lines, P.C., et al. v. Patrick M. Regan, et al., CL10-2380, too remote and hypothetical, such that this case is rendered non-justiciable?

2. Do Regan Zambri & Long, PLLC., and Patrick M. Regan, Esq., have standing, independent of plaintiff Dominic Novak, to prosecute this action?

3. Assuming for the sake argument that the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter, should it nevertheless abstain from exercising that jurisdiction in light of the concurrent proceedings in the Commonwealth of Virginia? Parties are advised to consider the following cases: Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976), Handy v. Shaw, Bransford, Veilleux & Roth, 325 F.3d 346 (D.C. Cir. 2003), Reiman v. Bromley Smith, 12 F.3d 222 (D.C. Cir. 1993), 1443 Chapin Street, LP, v. PNC Bank, Nat'l Assoc'n, 718 F. Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C. 2010).

It is, therefore, hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint [#8] is DENIED without prejudice. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Request for Oral Argument Concerning Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#10] is DENIED as moot. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that defendants file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and lack of standing, or, in the alternative, to abstain from exercising jurisdiction, by August 17, 2011. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that plaintiffs file a response to defendants' motion to dismiss by September 2, 2011. It is further, hereby,

ORDERED that defendants file a reply by September 9, 2011. Finally, it is, hereby, ORDERED that discovery is stayed in this case until the motion to dismiss has been resolved.

SO ORDERED.

20110727

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.