govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_13-cv-00650-11

NOTFORPUBLICATION
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
DISTRICTOFNEWJERSEY
ROBERTSWIFT,CivilActionNo.:13-650(JLL)
Plaintiff,OPINION
V.
RAMESHPANDEY,eta!.,
Defendants.
LINARES,ChiefDistrictJudge.
ThismattercomesbeforetheCourtbywayofprosePlaintiffRobertSwifi’sMotionfor
PartialSummaryJudgmentpursuanttoFederalRuleofCivilProcedure56andLocalRuleofCivil
Procedure56.1(ECFNo.216).DefendantsRarneshPandeyandBhuwanPandeyhavenot
submittedOpposition.TheCourtdecidesthismatterwithoutoralargumentpursuanttoRule78
oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.Forthereasonssetforthbelow,theCourtdenies
PlaintiffsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgment.
I.BACKGROUND’
PlaintiffisaColoradoresidentwho,atapublicbankruptcyauction,“purchasedallright,
titleandinterestinanyandallassetsinXechernInternational,Inc.”(TAC¶4).Thepurchase
ThesebackgroundfactsaretakenfromthePlaintiffsstatementsofmaterialfacts,pursuanttoLocalCivilRule56.1.
(ECFNo.216,PlaintiffsRule56.1StatementofFacts(“P1.SMF”)),aswellasPlaintiffsThirdAmendedComplaint
(ECfNo.$5(“TAC”)).TheCourtnotesthatPlaintiffsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentcontainsonlyeleven
StatementsofUndisputedMaterialFact,whichdonotprovidesufficientfactualbackground.Accordingly,reliance
ontheTAC,andDefendants’Answerthereto,isnecessarytoprovideamorecompletefactualrecitationoftheissue
indispute.TheCourtdoesnotnecessarilyaccepttheallegationsextractedfromtheTACtobetrue,and.forpurposes
ofthisMotion,merelyusessametoprovideamorerobustfactualbackground.
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 222     Filed 08/31/17     Page 1 of 7 PageID:
<pageID>
includedanystockofanaffiliatedIndiancorporation,XechemIndiaPvt.Ltd.(“XechernIndia”).
(Id.).ThistransactiontookplaceonAugust24,2011.(Id.).ItisundisputedthatDefendant
Ramesh,alongwithDefendantBhuwan,foundedXechemInternational,Inc.(“Xechem
International”)in1994,andthatDefendantRarneshservedasitsChiefExecutiveOfficer,
President,andChairmanoftheBoardofDirectors.(P1.$MF¶1).DefendantBhuwanservedas
thecompany’sGeneralManagerandDirectoraswellasVicePresidentofInternational
Operations.(TAC¶12).
Fromtheyearsof2000through2007,DefendantXechemIndia“hadnobusinessincome.”
(P1.SMF¶2).XechernIndiaisbasedoutofNewDelhi,Indiaandisownedandoperatedby
DefendantsRameshandBhuwan.(TAC¶9).TheessenceofPlaintiffsallegationsisthatXechern
Indiawasa“shellcompany”thattheDefendantsusedtofunnelmoneyoutofXechem
Internationalfortheirownfinancialbenefit.(See,e.g.,id.at¶f46-74).In1998,Defendant
RarneshtransferrednearlyallofhissharesinXechemIndiatoDefendantBhuwan,who,asof
August2007,ownednearly100percentofitsstock.(Id.at¶32-33).PlaintiffjoinedXechem
International’sboardofdirectorsinMay2007.(Id.at¶39).
PlaintiffallegesthatXechemInternationalwiredXechemIndia$977,394,supposedlyasa
loan,butthattherewasnocontractbetweentheentitiessupportingsaidloan.(Id.at¶20).Plaintiff
believesthat“[Defendant]Rarneshand[Defendant]Bhuwanusedthemoney[fromthepurported
laon]...fortravel,tobuyassetsheldbyXechernIndia,includingcars,land...andtopayforthe
day-to-dayoperationofXechemIndia,includingmoneytotheirrelatives,”butfailstoprovideany
evidenceinsupportofthiscontention.(TAC¶17,cfP1.$MF).AtaMay2007meetingof
XechernInternational’sboardofdirectors,“[t]heBoardinquiredastotheneedforanaccounting
2
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 222     Filed 08/31/17     Page 2 of 7 PageID:
<pageID>
ofthesourceanduseofthefundsassoonaspossible,todetenninetheadvisabilityandcostof
fundingXechemIndia.”(TAC¶41).DefendantRameshtoldtheboardthat$700,000hadbeen
loanedbyXechemInternationaltoXechemIndia,that$100,000ofsaidloanhadbeensent
recently,“andthatXechemIndiadidnothavesignificantassetstodate.”(Id.).
DefendantRarneshwassubsequentlyremovedfromhispositionasChiefExecutive
Officer,President,andBoardChainTlanofXechernInternationalinJuly2007.(Id.at¶43).In
2008,XechernInternationalfiledforBankruptcyprotection.PlaintiffassertsthatXechernIndia
hasnotrepaidtheprincipalorinterestontheloanfromXechemInternational.(Id.at¶J47-54).
ThegravarnenofPlaintiffsTACappearstobethatDefendantsdidnotgiveXechem
International’sboardadequatenoticethatXechernIndiawasnotasubsidiaryofXechern
Internaitonal,butPlaintiffprovidesnoexplanationastohowthisallegationisrelevanttothe
pendingaction.(Id.at¶45).AccordingtoPlaintiff,hadtheboardknownthisfact,Xechem
International’s“boardofdirectorswouldnothaveauthorized”theloan.(Id.at¶45).
Accordingly,PlaintiffbroughtthisactiononJanuary31,2013.(ECFNo.1).After
substantialmotionpracticeandnumerousamendments,TACbecametheoperativecomplaint.
TACcontainssixcountsassertingthefollowingcausesofaction:CountI—“QuantumMeruitby
[Defendant]Rarnesh;”CountII—“QuantumMeruitby[Defendant]Bhuwan;”CountIII—
“QuantumMeruitbyXechernIndia;”CountIV—“UnjustEnrichmentby[Defendant]Ramesh;”
CountV—“UnjustEnrichmentby[Defendant]Bhuwan;”andCountVI—“UnjustEnrichmentby
XechernIndia.”(SeegenerallyTAC).Plaintiffpreviouslymovedforpartialsummaryjudgernent
onNovember9,2015(ECfNo.113),butthisCourtadministrativelytenTlinatedsame,without
prejudice,asitwasmadewithouttherequisiteleavetofilesuchamotionincontraventionofthe
3
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 222     Filed 08/31/17     Page 3 of 7 PageID:
<pageID>
pretrialschedulingorder.(ECFNo.116).PlaintiffwasfinallygrantedleavetofilehisMotionfor
PartialSummaryJudgmentandfiledsameonNovember7,2016.(ECFNo.174).SaidMotion
soughttheentryofanOrdergrantingjudgmentasamatteroflawonclaimsofpromissoryestoppel,
equitableestoppel,andunjustenrichment.(Id.).ThisCourtdeniedPlaintiffsMotiononthe
groundsthatPlaintiffneverpledcausesofactionforpromissoryestoppelandequitableestoppel.
(ECFNo.197).Additionally,thisCourtheldthatPlaintifffailedtoshowthathewasentitledto
summaryjudgmentonhisunjustenrichmentclaimashisMotionfailedtoshowthattherequisite
elementsforsuchaclaimweremet.(Id.).Plaintiffnowmoves,onceagain,forpartialsummary
judgmentwithrespecttohisunjustenrichmentclaimonly.(ECFNo.216).
II.LEGALSTANDARD
Summaryjudgmentisappropriatewhen,drawingallreasonableinferencesinthenon
movant’sfavor,thereexistsno“genuinedisputeastoanymaterialfact”andthemovantisentitled
tojudgmentasamatteroflaw.SeeFed.R.Civ.P.56(a);Andersonv.LibertyLobby,Inc.,477
U.S.242,255(1986).“[Tjhemovingpartymustshowthatthenon-movingpartyhasfailedto
establishoneormoreessentialelementsofitscaseonwhichthenon-movingpartyhastheburden
ofproofattrial.”McCabev.Ernst&Young,LLP,494F.3d418,424(3dCir.2007)(citingCelotex
Corp.v.Catrett,477U.S.317,322-23(1986)).
TheCourtmustconsiderallfactsandtheirreasonableinferencesinthelightmostfavorable
tothenon-movingparty.SeePa.CoatAss’nv.Babbitt,63F.3d231,236(3dCir.1995).Ifa
reasonablejurorcouldreturnaverdictforthenon-movingpartyregardingmaterialdisputed
factualissues,summaryjudgmentisnotappropriate.SeeAnderson,477U.S.at242-43(“Atthe
4
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 222     Filed 08/31/17     Page 4 of 7 PageID:
<pageID>
summaryjudgmentstage,thetrialjudge’sfunctionisnothimselftoweightheevidenceand
determinethetruthofthematterbuttodeterminewhetherthereisagenuineissuefortrial.”).
III.ANALYSIS
TheCourt,onceagain,deniesPlaintiffsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentastohis
unjustenrichmentclaims,asitsuffersfromthesameinfirmitiesthathispreviousMotionsuffered
from.TosucceedonaclaimforunjustenrichmentunderNewJerseylaw,“aplaintiffmustshow
boththatdefendantreceivedabenefitandthatretentionofthatbenefitwithoutpaymentwouldbe
unjust.”VRGCoip.v.GKNRea1t-yCorp.,135N.J.539,554(N.J.Sup.Ct.1994);seealsoCallano
v.OakwoodParkHomesCoip.,91N.J.Super.105,108(N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.1966).
Additionally,foranunjustenrichmentclaimtosucceed,theremustbeashowingthat“theptaintf
expectedremunerationfromthedefendant,orifthetruefactswereknowntoplaintiff,hewould
haveexpectedremunerationfromdefendant,atthetimethebenefitwasconferred.”Callano,91
N.J.Super.at109(emphasisadded);seealsoVRGCorp.,135N.J.at554.
Here,onceagain,eveniftheCourtweretoaccepteverysingleoneofPlaintiffsStatement
ofUndisputedMaterialFactsastrue,2Plaintiffstillwouldnotbeentitledtojudgmentasamatter
oflaw.Rather,aswasthecasewithhispreviotisMotion,theStatementofUndisputedMaterial
FactsestablishesthatDefendantRameshfoundedXechernInternational.(P1.SMF
¶1).
Additionally,PlaintiffsStatementofUndisputedMaterialfactsalsodescribesDefendant
Ramesh’svariouspositionswiththecompany.(Id.).Also,P1.SMfestablishesthatXechemIndia
“hadnobusinessincomebetween2000and2007.”(P1.SMF
¶2).Additionally,duringthe
aforementionedtimeperiod,“XechernIndiareceived$1millionfromXechern”International.(P1.
2TheCourtnotesthatP1.SMFareblanketstatementswithnocitationoftherecordtosupportsuchstatements.
5
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 222     Filed 08/31/17     Page 5 of 7 PageID:
<pageID>
SMF¶3).ThosestatementsalsoexplainthatXechemIndiawaspubliclyheldouttobea
subsidiaryofXechemInternationalonXechernInternational’sannualfinancialstatementsandon
anagreementbetweenXechernIndiaandanIndianUniversity.(P1.SMF¶J10-11).Moreover,
saidstatementsalsoshowthattherewasapurportedtransferof662/3%ofXechemIndiaassets
toXechemInternational,butthatsaidtransfernevertookplace.(P1.SMF¶6).Finally,itis
undisputedthatthereisnocontractthatgovernstheaforementionedtransferofassets.(P1.SMF
¶8).
TheCourtcannot,basedontheaforementionedStatementofUndisputedMaterialFacts
andtherecordbeforeit,grantPlaintiffsmotion.AswasthecasewithPlaintiffspriorMotionfor
PartialSummaryJudgment,therecorddoesnotcontainanyfactsorevidencethatshowDefendants
receivedanybenefit.IntheCourt’sbroadestandmostfavorablereadingofPlaintiffsMotion,
PlaintiffseemstoarguethatDefendantsbenefitedfromtheaforementionedtransferofassetsand
purportedloanfromXechemInternationaltoXechernIndia.However,Plaintifffailstoexplain
howthesetransactionsactuallybenefitedDefendantsanddoesnotprovideanyevidencetoshow
thatDefendantsenjoyedanybenefitsfromsame.Thus,thisCourtconcludesthatagenuineissue
ofmaterialfactexistsastowhetherDefendantseverreceivedabenefitfromthesubject
transactions.
Moreimportantly,evenifthetransferofassetsandthepurportedloanfromXechem
InternationaltoXechernIndiacouldsomehowbeconstruedasabenefittoDefendants,Plaintiffs
currentMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentastohisunjustenrichmentclaimstillfails.Indeed,
neithertherecordnorP1.SMFshowthatPlaintiffeverexpectedremunerationinconnectionwith
thesetransactions,whichisanessentialelementofaclaimforunjustenrichment.Asamatterof
6
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 222     Filed 08/31/17     Page 6 of 7 PageID:
<pageID>
fact,andasthisCourtnotedbefore,PlaintiffsrelationshipwithDefendantsandinvolvementwith
XechemInternational’sBoardofDirectorsoccurredyearsafterthecomplainedoftransactions.
Furthermore,Plaintiffcontinuestofailtointroduceanyevidencethathewouldhaveexpected
remuneration,hadheknownaboutsaidtransactions.Accordingly,theCourtcontinuestohold
thatPlaintiffhasnotprovidedthisCourtwithsufficientevidenceforittoconcludethatthereisno
genuineissueofmaterialfactthatheexpectedremunerationinconnectionwiththeaforementioned
transactions,letalonewasdeprivedofsame.Hence,Plaintiffhasonceagainfailedtoestablish
thatheisentitledtosummaryjudgmentastohisunjustenrichmentclaimandhismotionforsame
isdenied.
IV.CONCLUSION
Fortheaforementionedreasons,PlaintiffsMotionforPartialSummaryJudgmentis
herebydenied.AnappropriateOrderaccompaniesthisOpinion.
DATED:August2017
Cb%fiudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
7
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 222     Filed 08/31/17     Page 7 of 7 PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight