In a recent court hearing, the defense presented motions to dismiss claims against Nick Bishop and Metro, arguing that the allegations lack legal standing and fail to meet procedural requirements. The defense contended that Bishop, either sued in his individual capacity or as a former president of the board, is not a party to the contract in question, and thus the claims against him should be dismissed.

The defense highlighted that the plaintiff's complaint does not adequately establish an enforceable contract, as it fails to attach the necessary written instrument, which is required under Rule 10.03. They argued that without this documentation, the court cannot ascertain the obligations of the parties involved. Furthermore, the defense pointed out that the plaintiff has not provided evidence of damages or specific breaches of duty by Bishop or Metro, which are essential elements for a breach of contract claim.

The discussion also touched on the statute of limitations, with the defense asserting that the claims are barred due to the expiration of the one-year limitation period outlined in the covenants and restrictions. They emphasized that the plaintiff's allegations regarding amendments to bylaws or restrictions were made well beyond this timeframe.

The defense criticized the plaintiff's reliance on general allegations, stating that the complaint lacks specificity regarding who is responsible for the alleged breaches and fails to identify any direct actions taken by Bishop or Metro that would constitute a violation of the contract. They noted that the complaint has been pending for 18 months without any amendments or additional evidence submitted by the plaintiff.

Overall, the defense maintained that the motions to dismiss should be granted due to the plaintiff's failure to comply with legal standards and the absence of a valid contractual basis for the claims made against Bishop and Metro. The court's decision on these motions will determine the future of the case.