Order on Motions to Dismiss — In re Carvana Securities

Summary

This is an order of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in United Association National Pension Fund, et al. v. Carvana Company, et al., No. CV-22-02126-PHX-MTL, dated April 10, 2024. It grants in part and denies in part the motion of Defendants Carvana Co., Ernest Garcia III, and Mark Jenkins to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint for failure to comply with the Court's February 29, 2024 Order, or alternatively for extensions. The Court states that it will not use its inherent authority to dismiss the Amended Complaint without leave to amend. It extends the defendants' motions to dismiss to 45 pages, and sets 45 days from the date of the order for those motions, 60 days for plaintiffs' responses, and 30 days for replies.

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

Record facts

Full text

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 
27 
28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 
 
 
United Association National Pension Fund, et 
al., 
 
Plaintiffs, 
 
v.  
 
Carvana Company, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
No. CV-22-02126-PHX-MTL 
 
ORDER  
 
 
 
IT IS ORDERED granting in part, and denying in part, Defendants Carvana Co., 
Ernest Garcia III, and Mark Jenkins Motion to Dismiss the Amended Consolidated 
Complaint for Failure to Comply with the Court’s February 29, 2024 Order and Fed. R. 
Civ. P. 8, or Alternatively, for an Extension of Defendants’ Time to File, and an Extension 
of Page Limits for, a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, to which the 
remaining Defendants join. (Docs. 73, 76, 77, 79.) The Court will not use its inherent 
authority under Rule 41(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., to dismiss the Amended Complaint without 
leave to amend for failure to comply with the Court’s February 29, 2024, Order and Rule 
8. If, however, Defendants wish to raise their failure to comply with Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. 
P., argument in a subsequent motion to dismiss, they may do so. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants Carvana Co., Ernest Garcia III, 
Mark Jenkins, Stephen Palmer, Michael Maroone, Neha Parikh, Ira Platt, and Greg 
Sullivan their page extension request, insofar that their motions to dismiss the Amended 
Consolidated Complaint shall be extended to 45 pages. (Docs. 73, 79.) 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL   Document 81   Filed 04/10/24   Page 1 of 2

 
- 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 
27 
28 
 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting in part, and denying in part, the Motion for 
Extension of Time for Defendants to Respond to Amended Complaint, to which 
Defendants Ernest Garcia II, Stephen Palmer, Michael Maroone, Neha Parikh, Ira Platt, 
Greg Sullivan, and Underwriter Defendants, joins. (Docs. 74, 76, 77, 79) 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Defendants shall have 45 days from the date 
of this Order to file their motions to dismiss to the Amended Consolidated Complaint. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file their response(s) to 
Defendants’ motions to dismiss 60 days from the date that the motions to dismiss are filed. 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file their replies in support of 
their motions to dismiss 30 days from the date that Plaintiffs’ response(s) are filed.  
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Expedited Consideration for 
Extension of Time (Doc. 75) is denied as moot.  
 
Dated this 10th day of April, 2024. 
 
 
 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL   Document 81   Filed 04/10/24   Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.azd.1319766.81.0.pdf

Size

101,942 bytes

SHA-256

15879e259d27d892f60cc2d96a5e1371bde5aa76a076f0251a7a3ed9e629dbda

Our copy

gov.uscourts.azd.1319766.81.0.pdf

Original

archive.org