According the complaint, the defendants through nearly constantly changing and involuntarily dissolved business organizations and names, used their website and other marketing materials to solicit individuals and businesses to invest money in IFC’s purported business of renovating foreclosed and distressed properties and reselling the properties for a profit. To date, none of the investors / Plaintiffs has received their full promised return on their investment and IFC has spent their money on property that was never the purpose explained in any of the marketing materials, which was rehabbing distressed properties in the United States.
An amended complaint was filed on March 17, 2009, prior to consolidation of related cases.
On April 27, 2009, a second amended complaint was filed prior to the consolidation of related cases.
On September 30, 2009, Defendant Martin’s Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied. Defendants Martin, Guidi, and Rodriguez’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is granted and the Complaint was dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice, with respect to Defendants Martin, Guidi, and Rodriguez. Defendants Sanchez and the IFC Entities’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part; with respect to Defendants Sanchez and InvestForClosures.com LLC, Count 15 survived but Counts 1-14, 16, and 17 are dismissed without prejudice; with respect to Defendants InvestForClosures Financial, L.L.C., and InvestForClosures Ventures LLC, Counts 13 and 15 survive but Counts 1-12, 14, 16, and 17 were dismissed without prejudice. Lastly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike was granted.
On October 15, 2009, a third amended complaint was filed with the court.
On October 20, 2009, a notice of voluntary dismissal was filed in the action by the plaintiff. The notice stated that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs hereby voluntarily withdraw their Third Amended Class
Action Complaint and dismiss the above-captioned case.