govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_13-cv-00650-10

NOTFORPUBLICATION
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
DISTRICTOFNEWJERSEY
ROBERTSWIFT,CivilActionNo.:13-650(JLL)
Plaintiff,
OPINION
V.
RAMESHPANDEY,etal.,
Defendants.
LINARES,DistrictJudge.
ThismattercomesbeforetheCourtbywayofprosePlaintiffRobertSwift’sMotionfor
PartialSummaryJudgmentpursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure56andLocalFederalRule
ofCivilProcedure56.1(ECFNo.174).DefendantsRameshPandeyandRhuwanPandeyhave
submittedOpposition(ECFNo.187),whichPlaintiffhasrepliedto.(ECFNo.193).TheCourt
decidesthismatterwithoutoralargumentpursuanttoRule78oftheFederalRulesofCivil
Procedure.Forthereasonssetforthbelow,theCourtdeniesPlaintiffsMotionforPartial
SummaryJudgment.
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 197     Filed 03/27/17     Page 1 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
I.BACKGROUND’
PlaintiffisaColoradoresidentwho,atapublicbankruptcyauction,“purchasedallright,
titleandinterestinanyandallassetsinXechemInternational,Inc.”(TAC¶4).Thepurchase
includedanystockofanaffiliatedIndiancorporation,XechemIndiaPvt.Ltd.(“XechernIndia”).
(Id.).ThistransactiontookplaceonAugust24,2011.(Id.).ItisundisputedthatDefendant
Ramesh,alongwithDefendantBhuwan,foundedofXechemInternational,Inc.(“Xechem
International”)in1994,andthatDefendantRameshservedasitsChiefExecutiveOfficer,
President,andChairmanoftheBoardofDirectors.(SeeP1.$MF¶1;ECFNo.187(“Def$MF”)
at5,¶1).DefendantBhuwanservedasthecompany’sGeneralManagerandDirectoraswellas
VicePresidentofInternationalOperations.(TAC¶12).
Fromtheyearsof1994through2006,DefendantXechemIndiawasasubsidiaryof
XechemInternational.(P1.SMF¶2).XechemIndiaisbasedoutofNewDelhi,Indiaandis
ownedandoperatedbyDefendantsRameshandBhuwan.(TAC¶9).TheessenceofPlaintifrs
allegationsisthatXechemIndiawasa“shellcompany”thattheDefendantsusedtofunnelmoney
outofXechernInternationalfortheirownfinancialbenefit.(See,e.g.,Id.at¶46-74).In1998,
DefendantRameshtransferrednearlyallofhissharesinXechemIndiatoDefendantBhuwan,
who,asofAugust2007,ownednearly100percentofitsstock.(Id.at¶32-33).Plaintiffjoined
Xechem’sboardofdirectorsinMay2007.(Id.at¶39).
ThesebackgroundfactsaretakenfromthePlaintiffsstatementsofmaterialfacts,pursuanttoLocalCivilRule56.1.
(ECFNo.174,PlaintiffsRule56.1StatementofFacts(“P1.SMF”)),aswellasPlaintiffsThirdAmendedComplaint
(ECFNo.85(“TAC”)).TheCourtnotesthatPlaintiffsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentcontainsonlyeight
StatementsofUndisputedMaterialFact,whichdonotprovidesufficientfactualbackground.Accordingly,reliance
ontheTAC,andDefendants’Answerthereto,isnecessarytoprovideamorecompletefactualrecitationoftheissue
indispute.ForpurposesofthisMotion,theCourtdoesnotnecessarilyaccepttheallegationsextractedfromtheTAC
tobetrue,andmerelyusessametoprovideamorerobustfactualbackground.
2
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 197     Filed 03/27/17     Page 2 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
PlaintiffallegesthatXechemInternationalwiredXechernIndia$977,394,supposedlyasa
loan,butthattherewasnocontractbetweentheentitiessupportingsaidloan.(Id.at¶20).Plainitff
believesthat“[Defendant]Rameshand[Defendant]Bhuwanusedthemoney[fromthepurported
laon]...fortravel,tobuyassetsheldbyXechemIndia,includingcars,land...andtopayforthe
day-to-dayoperationofXechemIndia,includingmoneytotheirrelatives”,butfailstoprovideany
evidenceinsupportofthiscontention.(TAC¶17,cfP1.SMf).AtaMay2007meetingof
XechemInternational’sboardofdirectors,“[t]heBoardinquiredastotheneedforanaccounting
ofthesourceanduseofthefundsassoonaspossible,todeterminetheadvisabilityandcostof
fundingXechemIndia.”(TAC¶41).DefendantRameshtoldtheboardthat$700,000hadbeen
lentfromXechernInternationaltoXechemIndia,that$100,000ofthatloanhadbeensentrecently,
“andthatXechemIndiadidnothavesignificantassetstodate.”(Id.).
DefendantRameshwassubsequentlyremovedfromhispositionasChiefExecutive
Officer,President,andBoardChairmanofXechernInternationalinJuly2007.(Id.at¶43).In
2008,XechernInternationalfiledforBankruptcyprotection.PlaintiffassertsthatXechemIndia
hasnotrepaidtheprincipalorinterestontheloanfromXechernInternational.(Id.at¶]47-54).
ThegravarnenofPlaintiffsTACisthatDefendantsdidnotgiveXechemInternational’sboard
adequatenoticethatXechemIndiawasnotasubsidiaryofXechemInternaitonal.(Id.at¶45).
AccordingtoPlaintiff,hadtheboardknownthisfact,XechemInternational’s“boardofdirectors
wouldnothaveauthorized”theloan.(Id.at¶45).
Accordingly,PlaintiffbroughtthisactiononJanuary31,2013.(ECFNo.1).Afler
substantialmotionpracticeandnumerousamendments,theTACbecametheoperativecomplaint.
TheTACcontainssixcountsassertingthefollowingcausesofaction:CountI—“QuantumMeruit
3
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 197     Filed 03/27/17     Page 3 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
by[Defendant]Ramesh;”CountII—“QttantttmMerttitby[Defendant]Bhuwan;”CountIII—
“QuantumMerititbyXechernIndia;”CountIV—“UnjustEnrichmentby[Defendant]Rarnesh;
CountV—“UnjustEnrichmentby[Defendant]Bhuwan;”andCountVI—“UnjustEnrichmentby
XechemIndia.”(SeegenerallyTAC).Plaintiffpreviouslymovedforpartialsummaryjudgement
onNovember9,2015(ECFNo.113),butthisCourtadministrativelytenTlinatedsame,without
prejudice,asitwasmadewithouttherequisiteleavetofilesuchamotionincontraventionofthe
pretrialschedulingorder.(ECFNo.116).PlaintiffwasfinallygrantedleavetofilehisMotionfor
PartialSummaryJudgmentandtheinstantapplicationfollowed.
PlaintiffsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentrequeststhatthisCourtenteranOrder
grantingjudgmentinhisfavor,asamatteroflaw.(SeeECFNo.174(“P1.Mov.Br.”)).
Specifically,Plaintiffarguesthattheevidenceelicitedduringdiscoveryclearlyshowsthat
DefendantsRameshandBhuwanareliableforUnjustEnrichment,PromissoryEstoppel,and
EquitableEstoppel.(P1.Mov.Br.at6-9).
II.LEGALSTANDARD
Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewhen,drawingallreasonableinferencesinthenon
movant’sfavor,thereexistsno“genuinedisputeastoanymaterialfact”andthemovantisentitled
tojudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.56(a);AndersonLibertyLobby,Inc.,477
U.S.242,255(1986).“[T]hemovingpartymustshowthatthenon-movingpartyhasfailedto
establishoneormoreessentialelementsofitscaseonwhichthenon-movingpartyhastheburden
ofproofattrial.”McCabev.Ernst&Young,LLP,494F.3d418,424(3dCir.2007)(citingCelotex
C’orp.V.C’atrett,477U.S.317,322-23(1986)).
4
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 197     Filed 03/27/17     Page 4 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
TheCourtmustconsiderallfactsandtheirreasonableinferencesinthelightmostfavorable
tothenon-movingparty.SeePa.CoalAss‘nv.Babbitt,63F.3d231,236(3dCir.1995).Ifa
reasonablejurorcouldreturnaverdictforthenon-movingpartyregardingmaterialdisputed
factualissues,summaryjudgmentisnotappropriate.SeeAnderson,477U.S.at242-43(“Atthe
summaryjudgmentstage,thetrialjudge’sfunctionisnothimselftoweightheevidenceand
determinethetruthofthematterbuttodeterminewhetherthereisagenuineissuefortrial.”).
III.ANALYSIS
Preliminarily,theCourtnotesthatPlaintiffhasmovedforsummaryjudgmentfortwo
causesofactionwhichwerenotincludedinhisTAC.SeeTACcfP1.Mov.Br.Specifically,
Plaintiffmovesforpartialsummaryjudgmentforclaimsofpromissoryestoppelandequitable
estoppel.(P1.Mov.Br.at7-9).Yet,PlaintiffsTACmakesnomentionoftheseclaims.(See
generallyTAC).
Rule8(a)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProceduremandatesthataplaintiffscomplaintset
forth:(1)ashortandplainstatementofthegroundsuponwhichtheCourt’sjurisdictiondepends;
(2)ashortandplainstatementoftheclaimshowingthatPlaintiffsareentitledtoreliefand(3)a
demandforthereliefsought.Fed.R.Civ.P.8(a)(emphasisadded).“[W]ithoutsomefactual
allegationinthecomplaint,aclaimantcannotsatisfytherequirementthatheorsheprovidenot
onlyfairnotice,butalsothegroundsonwhichtheclaimsrests.”Phillipsv.Cnty.ofAllegheny,
515F.3d224,232(3dCir.2008)(citationomitted).TheCourtrecognizesthatcomplaintsfiled
proseare“tobeliberallyconstrued,”andthattheCourtisobligatedtouse“lessstringentstandards
thanformalpleadingsdraftedbylawyers.”Ericksonv.Parthts,551U.S.89,94(2007)(per
curiam).However,therelaxedstandarddoesnotrelieveaproselitigantofthedutytogivefair
5
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 197     Filed 03/27/17     Page 5 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
notice.
“[A]
situation
may
arise
where...
the
factual
detail
in
acomplaint
is
so
undeveloped
that
it
does
not
provide
a
defendant
the
type
of
notice
of
claim
which
is
contemplated
by
Rule
8.”
Phillips,
515
F.3d
at
233
(citation
omitted)
(emphasis
added).
In
this
matter,
Plaintiff
has,
at
no
point
ever,
put
any
Defendant
on
notice
that
he
was
asserting
claims
for
promissory
estoppel
and
equitable
estoppel.
Moreover,
by
failing
to
plead
these
causes
of
action,
Plaintiff
has
not
provided
Defendants
with
any
factual
allegations
associated
therewith.
Allowing
such
aclaim
to
proceed
would
not
comport
with
the
notions
of
fairness
that
underlie
Rule
8(a),
nor
would
it
be
consistent
with
Phillips,
sttpra.
Thus,
the
Court
denies
Plaintiffs
Motion
for
Partial
Summary
Judgment
as
it
pertains
to
the
unplead
claims
of
promissory
estoppel
and
equitable
estoppel.
Furthermore,
the
Court
denies
Plaintiffs
Motion
for
Partial
Summary
Judgment
as
to
the
unjust
enrichment
claims.
To
succeed
on
aclaim
for
unjust
enrichment
under
New
Jersey
law,
“a
plaintiff
must
show
both
that
defendant
received
abenefit
and
that
retention
of
that
benefit
without
payment
would
be
unjust.”
VRG
Corp.
V.
GKAT
Realty
Coip.,
135
N.J.
539,
554
(N.J.
Sup.
Ct.
1994);
see
also
Callano
v.
Oalm’ood
Park
Homes
Corp.,
91
N.J.
Super.
105,
108
(N.J.
Super.
Ct.
App.
Div.
1966).
Additionally,
for
an
unjust
enrichment
claim
to
succeed,
there
must
be
ashowing
that
“the
plaintiff
expected
remuneration
from
the
defendant,
or
if
the
true
facts
were
known
to
plaintiff,
he
would
have
expected
remuneration
from
defendant,
at
the
time
the
benefit
was
conferred.”
Callano,
91
N.J.
Super.
at
109
(emphasis
added);
see
also
VRG
Corp.,
135
N.J.
at
554.
Here,
even
if
the
Court
were
to
accept
every
single
one
of
Plaintiffs
Statement
of
Undisputed
Material
facts
as
true,
Plaintiff
still
would
not
be
entitled
to
judgnient
as
amatter
of
6
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 197     Filed 03/27/17     Page 6 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
law.Rather,theStatementofUndisputedMaterialFactsestablishthatDefendantRameshfounded
XechernInternationalandmadeitapubliccompanyin1994.(P1.SMF¶1).Additionally,
PlaintiffsStatementofUndisputedMaterialFactsalsodescribesDefendantRamesh’svarious
positionswiththecompany.(Id.).ThosestatementsalsoexplainthatXechemIndiawaspublicly
heldouttobeasubsidiaryofXechemInternationalonXechemInternational’sannualfinancial
statementsandonanagreementbetweenXechernIndiaandanIndianUniversity.(P1.SMF¶J2-
3).
PlaintiffsStatementofUndisputedStatementofMaterialFactsalsoestablishthat
DefendantBhuwan“sentalettertotheEmbassyoftheUnitedStatesofAmericainIndiarequested
[sic]avisa...tovisitXechern[International]intheU.S.andinthatletter[Defendant]Bhuwan[]
statesthatXechernIndia...isasubsidiaryofXechernInternational.”(P1.SMF¶4).Moreover,
saidstatementsalsoshowthattherewasapurportedtransferof662/3%ofXechemIndiaassets
toXechemInternational,butthatsaidtransfernevertookplace.(P1.SMF¶]5-6).Finally,itis
undisputedthatthereisacontractgovernstheaforementionedtransferofassets.(P1.SMF¶8).
TheCourtcannot,basedontheaforementionedStatementofUndisputedMaterialFacts
andtherecordbeforeit,grantPlaintiffsmotion.Thisisbecausenowherewithintherecorddoes
PlaintiffpointtofactsorevidencethatshowDefendantsreceivedanybenefit.PlaintiffDefendants
benefitedfromtheaforementionedtransferofassetsandpurportedloanfromXechemIndiato
XechemInternational.However,Plaintifffailstoexplainhowthesetransactionsactually
benefitedDefendantsanddoesnotprovideanyevidencetoshowthatDefendantsenjoyedany
benefitsfromsame.Thus,thisCourtconcludesthatagenuineissueofmaterialfactexistswith
regardsastowhetherDefendantseverreceivedabenefitfromthesubjecttransactions.
7
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 197     Filed 03/27/17     Page 7 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
Moreimportantly,evenifthetransferofassetsandthepurportedloanfromXecehm
InternationaltoXechernIndia,aloanthatDefendantsdisputetheexistenceofandthatPlaintiff
hasfailedtoprovideevidenceinsupportof(Def.SMF¶7),couldsomehowbeconstruedasa
benefittoDefendants,PlaintiffsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentforunjustenrichmentstill
fails.Indeed,neithertherecordnorPlaintiffsStatementofUndisputedMaterialFactsshowthat
Plaintiffeverexpectedremunerationinconnectionwiththesetransactions.Asamatteroffact,
PlaintiffsrelationshipwithDefendantsandinvolvementwithXechemInternational’sBoardof
Directorsoccurredyearsafterthecomplainedoftransactions.Furthermore,Plaintiffhas
introducednoevidencethathewouldhaveexpectedremuneration,hadheknownaboutsaid
transactions.Accordingly,theCourtfindsthatPlaintiffhasnotprovidedthisCourtwithsufficient
evidenceforittoconcludethatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactthatheexpected
remunerationinconnectionwiththeaforementionedtransactions,letalonewasdeprivedofsame.
Hence,Plaintiffhasfailedtoestablishthatheisentitledtosummaryjudgmentastohisunjust
enrichmentclaimsandhismotionforsameisdenied.
CONCLUSION
Fortheaforementionedreasons,PlaintiffsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentis
herebydenied.AnappropriateOrderaccompaniesthisOpinion.
DATED:March,2017
STATESDISTRICTJUDGE
8
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 197     Filed 03/27/17     Page 8 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight