Streblow et al v. Club 180 et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHUCK STREBLOW, SARAH HOUSTON,
IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES, INC.,
KIMBERLY HERNANDEZ, JANE DOE
DANCERS #1-25, CASEY ROWE, JOHN
DOE SECURITY GUARDS #1-7, and
JOHN & JANE DOE CUSTOMERS #1-100,
and all Similarly Situated Residential &
Commercial Neighbors of Club 180;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CLUB 180, AM314, LLC, MATTHEW
LONGCOR, AYDEN LONGCOR,
NICHOLAS SCALISE, EVRON, INC.,
NANCY WAGGENER, PAUL WAGGENER,
BRAVO1 SECURITY, INC., MICHAEL
ELAYAN, MIROSLAVA KOTSAN, STU
SLEEPER, DAVID EKDAHL, JAMES PULL,
BLAIKE KOCA, MARLEY NYGAARD, JALIL
TOOKHI, MALIK HARMON, ABDUL
RAHMANZAI, DAVID LOOLOO, BROOKE
LEIBERT, ELENA RHODD-MORALES,
CHRISTINA CRAFT, TOAST, INC., ERIC
HAVERMANN, ELLIE JAEKE, ROMAN,
ECHO, AMIRA, JESSIE, SANTANA,
JOHN & JANE ROES #1-50, JESSICA
RICHARDSON, BREAUNA HOFFMAN,
TEAONA MASON, LANIE WILSON,
PATIENCE ELIZABETH, BRITTNEY
DINOVO, KIARA MORALES, SKYLAR
DICKEY, JANAE BALT, A. JANSEN,
OCTAVIA, SAPPHIRE, WINTER,
MIREYA, TINY, 7 OAKS INVESTMENT
CORP., CHAD, and MICHAEL ALAN
BEENE,
Defendants.
8:25CV241
ORDER
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 222 Filed: 11/06/25 Page 1 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to file a second amended
complaint, Filing No. 169, and notice of dismissal of certain defendants, Filing No. 217.
For the reasons stated herein, the Court grants the motions and denies certain other
filings as moot in light of the second amended complaint.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 1, 2025. Filing No. 1. They amended their
complaint once as of right on April 21, 2025. Filing No. 24. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Filing No. 121. The Court denied
the temporary restraining order and has held the motion for preliminary injunction in
abeyance pending responses from Defendants. Filing No. 130. Subsequently, certain
Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Filing No. 102; Filing No.
104; Filing No. 119; Filing No. 141; Filing No. 156. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion,
Filing No. 169, seeking leave to file a second amended complaint, a copy of which can
be found at Filing No. 169-1. Two groups of Defendants have opposed Plaintiffs’ leave
to amend, arguing amendment would be futile. Filing No. 175; Filing No. 181.
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs have not successfully served all Defendants named in the
amended complaint or proposed second amended complaint. On November 3, 2025, the
Court entered an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed against the
unserved defendants for failure to prosecute. Filing No. 214. Plaintiffs responded by
filing a notice of dismissal as to twenty-seven Defendants, Filing No. 217, and a motion
for leave for alterative service as to nine other Defendants, Filing No. 218.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be freely
given when justice so requires.” Unless there is a good reason for denial, such as “undue
delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 222 Filed: 11/06/25 Page 2 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the amendment,”
leave to amend should be granted. Doe v. Cassel, 403 F.3d 986, 990-91 (8th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Becker v. Univ. of Neb. at Omaha, 191 F.3d 904, 908 (8th Cir. 1999)). Whether
to grant a motion for leave to amend is within the sound discretion of the district court.
See Gamma-10 Plastics, Inc. v. Am. President Lines, 32 F.3d 1244, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994).
Here, the Court finds Plaintiffs should be given leave to file their proposed second
amended complaint. Although certain Defendants argue amendment would be futile
because the proposed second amended complaint fails to state a claim for relief against
them, the Court finds in its discretion that allowing the amendment would not be futile
because such arguments pertain only to portions of the second amended complaint.
Rather, in the interests of justice and efficiency, Plaintiffs will be permitted to file their
second amended complaint and those Defendants who believe it fails to state a valid
cause of action against them may raise the issue in a motion to dismiss. However,
because subsequent to the filing of the motion to amend, Plaintiffs have dismissed
Defendants named in the proposed second amended complaint, Plaintiffs are ordered to
file a second amended complaint that omits those Defendants and any corresponding
causes of action that have been dismissed but is otherwise identical to that found at Filing
No. 169-1.
The Court also grants Plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal of certain parties. Filing No.
217.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend, Filing No. 169, is granted. Within seven (7)
days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Complaint.
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 222 Filed: 11/06/25 Page 3 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
The Second Amended Complaint shall be identical to the red-lined version found
at Filing No. 169-1 except that Plaintiffs shall omit those Defendants and causes
of action which have been subsequently dismissed.
2. Plaintiffs’ Notice of Dismissal of Parties without Prejudice, Filing No. 217, is
granted. Defendants Malik Harmon, David Looloo, Brooke Leibert, Elena Rhodd-
Morales, Teaona Mason, Lanie Wilson, Patience Elizabeth, Brittney Dinovo, Janae
Balt, Marley Nygaard, Jalil Tookhi, Ellie Jaeke, Savannah Ludwick aka Santana,
Christina Craft, Breauna Hoffman, Kiara Morales, Chandler Mahoney aka Winter,
Roman, Echo, Jessie, Octavia, Sapphire, Mireya, Tiny, A. Jansen, Alyssa aka
Amira aka Princess AK, and Chad are dismissed without prejudice.
3. In light of Plaintiffs being given leave to file their second amended complaint, the
motions to dismiss relevant to the amended complaint, Filing No. 102; Filing No.
104; Filing No. 119; Filing No. 141; Filing No. 156, are denied as moot without
prejudice to reassertion.
4. In light of Plaintiffs being given leave to file their second amended complaint, the
motion for preliminary injunction, Filing No. 121, is denied as moot.
5. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for resolution of the motion for
alternative service1 and for additional case management.
Dated this 6th day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge
1 The Court is also aware of the outstanding motion for contempt, Filing No. 198. The Court will address
this motion in due course.
8:25-cv-00241-JFB-RCC Doc # 222 Filed: 11/06/25 Page 4 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>