Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC — U.S. District Court, E.D. Ark. MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Capital Plus Financial LLC, Crossroads… — Great…

Court filing

MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Capital Plus Financial LLC, Crossroads… — Greathouse Capitalplus (Dkt. 50)

Summary

A Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief by Defendants Capital Plus Financial, LLC and Crossroads Systems, Inc., Doc. 50, filed May 25, 2022 in Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-01243-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The defendants state that the plaintiffs' May 23, 2022 response in opposition to the motion to dismiss is seventy-five pages in length and provides two declarations. They ask to file a short reply, no greater than ten pages, limited to listed issues, including personal jurisdiction, the plaintiffs' reading of Ford Motor Co. and Bristol Myers, and jurisdictional discovery. The reply would be filed within seven days from the Court's ruling.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by Capital Plus Financial LLC, Crossroads… — Greathouse Capitalplus (Dkt. 50).” Original at ecf.ared.uscourts.gov, No. 4:21-cv-01243-BRW, Doc. 50. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/greathouse-capitalplus-ared-131205/undated-gov-uscourts-ared-131205-50-0-gov-uscourts-ared-131205-50-0/, SHA-256 dd51ccff64eb5ecdfc91c2e821a73752a56aad32dd6c9a7b9afe92276b16ee23.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

          Case 4:21-cv-01243-BRW                 Document 50           Filed 05/25/22          Page 1 of 3




                           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
                                     CENTRAL DIVISION

    Eric Greathouse, Ernesto Covarrubias,                  §
    Tiffany Sumrall, and Barbara Myles,                    §
    individually and on behalf of all others               §
    similarly situated,                                    §
                                                           §
    Plaintiff,                                             §       Case No. 4:21–cv–1243–BRW
                                                           §
    v.                                                     §
                                                           §
    Capital Plus Financial, LLC and                        §
    Crossroads Systems, Inc.,                              §
    Defendants.



                          MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF

           Capital Plus Financial, LLC and Crossroads Systems, Inc., collectively, “Defendants,”

have moved to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint (ECF 31). ECF 44. On May 23,

2022, Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to dismiss, which is seventy-five pages

in length and provides two declarations. ECF 49.

           To assist the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, Defendants respectfully request that

they be permitted a short reply, no greater than ten pages, 1 limited to addressing the following

issues:

           1.     Plaintiffs’ misrepresentations regarding personal jurisdiction over the Defendants,
                  including that:

                  a.       Greathouse’s loan documents contain language stating the loan would
                           ultimately be paid to an Arkansas bank (which it does not);




1
  Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs’ response brief as it pertains to the issues of Plaintiffs’ ability to demonstrate
standing or state a claim. For purposes of their reply, however, Defendants will focus solely on the deficiencies in
Plaintiffs’ personal jurisdiction arguments.
       Case 4:21-cv-01243-BRW           Document 50        Filed 05/25/22       Page 2 of 3




               b.     Ms. Giga’s Declaration states that Defendants advertised in Arkansas (when
                      it says that they did not and that any communication with Mr. Greathouse
                      was after his loan was approved by the SBA); and

               c.     SBA’s Loan Service Center engages in loan origination and would service
                      unfunded loans (a representation which runs counter to SBA’s own
                      website);

       2.      Plaintiffs’ flawed interpretation of Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist.
               Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021), which has never been applied in a breach-of-contract
               case and is distinguishable here because Defendants do not have nationwide,
               physical offices or a product in the stream of commerce;

       3.      Plaintiffs’ misplaced reliance on the recent order in the pending litigation in Oto
               Analytics, Inc. v. Cap. Plus Fin., LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-02636-B (N.D. Tex.)
               (“Womply”) because the orders on defendants’ recent motions to dismiss premise
               the jurisdictional analysis on the forum in which a defendant does business, not the
               resident state of the borrowers as Plaintiffs allege;

       4.      Plaintiffs’ misinterpretation of Bristol Myers v. Superior Ct. of California, San
               Fransisco City., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) because Plaintiffs must show their claims
               arise out of or relate to Defendants’ contacts with the forum; and

       5.      Plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate that they are entitled to jurisdictional discovery
               under the relevant test in the Eighth Circuit requiring certain facts to be unknown
               or undisputed.

       A reply on these discrete issues is necessary so that the Court has a full and accurate record

before it issues a ruling. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that they be granted leave

to file a short reply, limited to the discrete issues set forth above, within seven days from the

Court’s ruling. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), no brief is required to be filed in support of this

request for leave.




                                                 2
Case 4:21-cv-01243-BRW        Document 50         Filed 05/25/22    Page 3 of 3




Respectfully submitted on May 25, 2022.

                                          Karen P. Freeman
                                          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG,
                                          GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
                                          4206 South J.B. Hunt Drive, Suite 200
                                          Rogers, Arkansas 72758
                                          Tel.: (479) 464–5650
                                          Fax: (479) 464–5680
                                          Kfreeman@mwlaw.com

                                          Graham Talley
                                          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG,
                                          GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
                                          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
                                          Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
                                          Tel.: (501) 688–8800
                                          Fax: (501) 688–8807
                                          Gtalley@mwlaw.com

                                          Katherine G. Treistman (pro hac vice)
                                          Andrew D. Bergman (pro hac vice)
                                          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
                                          700 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
                                          Houston, Texas 77002–2755
                                          Tel.: (713) 576–2400
                                          Fax: (713) 576–2499
                                          Katherine.Treistman@arnoldporter.com
                                          Andrew.Bergman@arnoldporter.com

                                          Eric N. Whitney (pro hac vice)
                                          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
                                          250 West 55th Street
                                          New York, New York 10019–9710
                                          Tel.: (212) 836–8000
                                          Fax: (212) 836–8689
                                          Eric.Whitney@arnoldporter.com

                                          Attorneys for Defendants Capital Plus
                                          Financial, LLC and Crossroads Systems, Inc.




                                      3


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.ared.131205.50.0.pdf
Size
166,735 bytes
SHA-256
dd51ccff64eb5ecdfc91c2e821a73752a56aad32dd6c9a7b9afe92276b16ee23
Our copy
gov.uscourts.ared.131205.50.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top