govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_13-cv-00650-13

NOT
FOR
PUBLICATION
UNITED
STATES
DISTRICT
COURT
DISTRICT
OF
NEW
JERSEY
ROBERT
SWIFT,
Civil
Action
No.:
13-650
(JLL)
Plaintiff,
OPINION
V.RAMESH
PANDEY,
et
at.,
Defendants.
LINARES,
Chief
District
Judge.
This
matter
comes
before
the
Court
by
way
of
Defendants
Rarnesh
Pandey
and
Bhuwan
Pandey’s
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment
pursuant
to
Federal
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
56
and
Local
Rule
of
Civil
Procedure
56.1
(ECF
No.
255).
Pro
se
Plaintiff
Robert
Swift
has
submitted
Opposition
(ECF
No.
259),
to
which
Defendants
have
replied.
(ECF
No.
262).
The
Court
decides
this
matter
without
oral
argument
pursuant
to
Rule
78
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.
For
the
reasons
set
forth
below,
the
Court
denies
Defendants’
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment.
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 264     Filed 05/22/18     Page 1 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
I.
BACKGROUND1
The
Court
has
set
forth,
at
length,
the
factual
and
procedural
background
as
it
pertains
to
this
action
in
its
Opinions
dated
August
10,
2016,
March
27,
2017,
August
31,
2017,
and
October
12,
2017.
(ECF
Nos.
165,
197,
222,
229).
Accordingly,
the
Court
need
not
restate,
and
hereby
incorporates,
same
herein.
Thus,
the
Court
will
only
set
forth
the
relevant
factual
and
procedural
background
as
it
pertains
to
Defendants’
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment.
This
case
revolves
around
a
transfer
of
assets
and
interest
between
Xechern
India
to
Xechern
International,
Inc.
(“Xechern
International”).
(Def.
SMF
¶
4).
It
is
undisputed
that
Defendant
Rarnesh
served
as
its
Chief
Executive
Officer,
President,
and
Chairman
of
the
Board
of
Directors.
(Def
SMF
¶
1).
Defendant
Bhuwan
served
as
the
company’s
General
Manager
and
Director
as
well
as
Vice
President
of
International
Operations.
(Id).
Plaintiff
joined
Xechem
International’s
board
of
directors
in
May
2017,
which
is
also
the
year
he
became
the
company’s
chief
operating
officer.
(Def.
SMF
¶
5).
At
that
time,
both
Defendants
Rarnelis
and
Bhuwan
were
removed
from
all
their
positions
at
Xechem
International.
(Id.).
Defendant
Rarnesh
had
full
control
of
Xechern
International
prior
to
his
ouster.
(P1.
SMF
¶
5).
Public
filings
with
the
Securities
and
Exchange
Commission
show
that
Defendant
Rarnesh
had
transferred
66
and
2/3%
of
Xechern
India
stock
to
Xechern
International.
(P1.
SMF
¶
8).
Based
on
these
filings,
Plaintiff
believed
that
Xechem
India
was
asubsidiary
of
Xechem
International.
These
background
facts
are
taken
from
the
Defendants’
statements
of
undisputed
material
facts,
pursuant
to
Local
Civil
Rule
56.1.
(ECF
No.
255.
Ptaintiffs
Rule
56.1
Statement
of
Undisputed
Facts
(“Def.
SMF”)),
as
well
as
Plaintiff’s
Statement
of
Undisputed
Material
Facts
(ECF
No.
259
(“P1.
SMf”)).
To
the
extent
that
Plaintiff
admits
to
any
Material
Facts
as
stated
by
Defendants,
the
Court
will
cite
only
to
“Def
SMF”
and
the
relevant
paragraph
number.
The
Court
will
“disregard
all
factual
and
legal
arguments,
opinions
and
any
other
portions
of
the
56.1
Statement
which
extend
beyond
statements
of
facts.”
G/obespctni’itata,
Inc.
v.
Tex.
Instrument,
Inc..
2005
U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
27820.
at
*10
(D.N.J.
Nov.
10.
2005):
see
also
L.
Civ.
R.
56.1
(“Each
statement
of
material
facts...
shall
not
contain
legal
argument
or
conclusions
of
law.”).
7
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 264     Filed 05/22/18     Page 2 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
(P1.SMF
¶11).Plaintiffalsoraised$7.1million,bywayofprivateplacementforXechern
International,inanattempttoexpandXechernInternational’sbusiness.(P1.SMf
¶16).Laterin
2007,PlaintifflearnedthatthepurportedtransferofinterestinXechernIndianevertookplace.
(P1.SMF
J22).Thereafter,in200$.XechemInternationalfiledforbankruptcyprotection.(Def.
SMf
¶6).In2011,Plaintiffpurchasedallrights,titleandinterestinanyandallassetsofXechern
Internationalatapublicbankruptcyauction.(Def.SMf
¶J7).
Accordingly,PlaintiffbroughtthisactiononJanuary31,2013.(ECFNo.1).After
substantialmotionpracticeandnumerousamendments,PlaintiffsThirdAmendedComplaint
(ECFNo.$5(“TAC”))becametheoperativecomplaint.TACcontainssixcountsassertingthe
followingcausesofaction:CountI—“QuantumMeruitby[Defendant]Ramesh;”CountII—
“QuantumMerititby[Defendant]Bhuwan;”CountIII—“QuantumIVleruitbyXechemIndia;”
CountIV—“UnjustEnrichmentby[Defendant]Ramesh:”CountV—“UnjustEnrichmentby
[Defendant]Bhuwan;”andCountVI—“UnjustEnrichmentbyXechernIndia.”(Seegeneral/v
TAC).PlaintiffpreviouslymovedforpartialsummaryjudgementonNovember9,2015.(ECF
No.113),butthisCourtadministrativelyterminatedsame,withoutprejudice,asitwasmade
withouttherequisiteleavetofilesuchamotionincontraventionofthepretrialschedulingorder.
(ECFNo.116).PlaintiffwasfinallygrantedleavetofilehisMotionforPartialSummary
JudgmentandfiledsameonNovember7,2016.(ECFNo.174).SaidMotionsoughttheentryof
anOrdergrantingjudgmentasamatteroflawonclaimsofpromissoryestoppel,equitable
estoppel,andunjustenrichment.(Id.).ThisCourtdeniedPlaintiffsMotiononthegroundsthat
Plaintiffneverpledcausesofactionforpromissoryestoppelandequitableestoppel.(ECfNo.
3
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 264     Filed 05/22/18     Page 3 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
197).Additionally,thisCourtheldthatPlaintifffailedtoshowthathewasentitledtosummary
judgmentonhisunjustenrichmentclaimashisMotionfailedtoshowthattherequisiteelements
forsuchaclaimweremet.(Id.).
Plaintiffonceagainmovedforpartialsummaryjudgmentwithrespecttohisunjust
enrichmentclaimonlyonJuly7,2017.(ECFNo.216).ThisCourtdeniedPlaintiffsMotion,
findingthatgenuineissuesofmaterialfactwerepresentsuchthatsummaryjudgmentcouldnotbe
enteredinhisfavor.(ECFNos.222,223).OnSeptember8,2017,filedaMotionfor
Reconsideration.(ECFNo.224).TheCourtdeniedsaidMotionforReconsideration,findingthat
Plaintiffcouldnotcarrytherequisiteburden.(ECfNos.228,229).OnApril4,2018,Defendants
filedthewithinapplicationforsummaryjudgment,whichPlaintiffopposes.(ECFNos.225,259,
respectively)
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).“[T]hemovingpartymustshowthatthenon-movingpartyhasfailedto
establishoneormoreessentialelementsofitscaseonwhichthenon-movingpartyhastheburden
ofproofattrial.”McCabev.Ernst&Young,LLP,494F.3d418,424(3dCir.2007)(citingCelotex
Coip.1’.Catrett,477U.S.317,322-23(1986)).
TheCourtmustconsiderallfactsandtheirreasonableinferencesinthelightmostfavorable
tothenon-movingparty.SeePa.CoalAss’nv.Babbitt,63F.3d231,236(3dCir.1995).Ifa
reasonablejurorcouldreturnaverdictforthenon-movingpartyregardingmaterialdisputed
4
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 264     Filed 05/22/18     Page 4 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
factualissues,summaryjudgmentisnotappropriate.SeeAnderson,477U.S.at242-43(“Atthe
summaryjudgmentstage,thetrialjudge’sfttnctionisnothimselftoweightheevidenceand
deterniinethetruthofthematterbuttodetenuinewhetherthereisagenuineissuefortrial.”).
III.ANALYSIS
TheCourtmustonceagaindenysummaryjudgmentinthiscase,asDefendants’current
MotionforSummaryJudgmentastoPlaintiffsunjustenrichmentclaimssuffersfromthesame
infirmitiesthatPlaintiffspreviousMotionsufferedfrom.2Tosucceedonaclaimforunjust
enrichmentunderNewJerseylaw,“aplaintiffmustshowboththatdefendantreceivedabenefit
andthatretentionofthatbenefitwithoutpaymentwouldbeunjust.”VRGCorp.v.GKNRealt’
Coip..135N.J.539,554(1994);seealsoCallanov.OakwoodFai*HomesCoip.,91N.J.Super.
105,108(App.Div.1966).Additionally,foranunjustenrichmentclaimtosucceed,theremust
beashowingthat“theplaintiffexpectedremunerationfromthedefendant,orifthetruefactswere
knowntoplaintiffhewouldhaveexpectedremunerationftomdefendant,atthetimethebenefit
wasconferred.”Callano,91N.J.Super.at109(emphasisadded);seealsoVRGCoip.,135N.J.
at554.
Here,onceagain,eveniftheCourtweretoaccepteverysingleoneofDefendants’and
PlaintiffsStatementofUndisputedMaterialFactsastrue,3Defendantsarenotentitledtojudgrnent
asamatterofYaw.Instead,theCourtfindsthatsaidStatementsofUndisputedMaterialFacts
furtheraffirmthatgenuineissuesofmaterialfactarepresent.AreviewofDefendants’Statements
ofUndisputedMaterialFactsshowthatXechernInternationalwasrunbyDefendantsandengaged
2TheCourtwouldberemissnottomentionthefactthatneitherpartycitestoanyrelevantlawinsupportoftheir
variouspositions.
TheCourtnotesthatthatbothDefSMFandP1.SMFareblanketstatementswithnocitationtotherecordtosupport
suchstatements.
5
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 264     Filed 05/22/18     Page 5 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
inbusinessinIndia.(Def.SMF¶1-2).Additionally,Def.SMFindicatesthatmoneywas
transferredfromXechemInternationaltoXechernIndiatocoveroperationalexpenses.(Def.SMF
¶3).Moreover,bothparties’StatementsofUndisputedMaterialFactsindicatethatPlaintiffjoined
XechemInternational’sboardin2007,andpurchasedsamein2011atapublicbankruptcyauction.
(Def.SMF¶J5,7;P1.SMF¶J22,27).Finally,P1.SMFestablishesthatXechemIndiawaswithout
businessincomeandthatXechernIndiareceived$977,394fromXechemInternational.(P1.SMF
¶26).
TheCourtcannot,basedontheaforementionedStatementofUndisputedMaterialFacts
andtherecordbeforeit,grantDefendants’motion.Thisisbecausenoneofthesefactsindicate
thatDefendants’areentitledtojudgmentintheirfavorasamatteroflaw.Rather,therecord
beforetheCourtisriddledwithgenuineissuesofmaterialfact.Indeed,eveniftheCourtwereto
acceptallDefendants’contentionsastrue,manyquestionsremainunanswered.Itisimpossible
toascertainfromsaidrecordwhetherornotDefendantsreceivedabenefit.AsthisCourtexplained
before,PlaintiffseemstoarguethatDefendantsbenefitedfromtheaforementionedtransferof
assetsandpurportedloanfromXechernInternationaltoXechemIndia.Previously,theCourt
observedthatPlaintifffailedtoexplainhowthesetransactionsactuallybenefitedDefendantsand
didnotprovideanyevidencetoshowthatDefendantsenjoyedanybenefitsfromsame.Here,itis
Defendants,whonowhavetheburdenasmovants,thathavefailedtoshowthattheydidnot
receiveabenefitfromthetransactions.Thus,thisCourtconcludesthatagenuineissueofmaterial
factexistsastowhetherDefendantseverreceivedabenefitfromthesubjecttransactions.
Similarly,saidrecorddoesnotestablishwhetherornotPlaintiffeverexpectedtoreceive
remunerationforsaidtransferofassets.AsexplainedinthisCourt’snumerousopinions,for
6
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 264     Filed 05/22/18     Page 6 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
Plaintifftosucceedontheseclaimshemustshowthatheexpectedtoreceiveremuneration.The
recordbeforetheCourtindicatesthatPlaintiffuncoveredthetransferofassetsin2007and
purchasedXechemInternationalin2011.Thatisallthatcanbegleanedfromsame.Asthe
movants,itisDefendantsburdenthatPlaintiffdidnotexpectremunerationinconnectionwiththe
transferofassets,McCctbe,494F.3dat424,whichtheyhavefailedtodo.Assuch,theCourtmust
denyDefendants’MotionforSummaryJudgmentastoPlaintiffsunjustenrichmentclaims.
TheCourtreachesthesameconclusionwithrespecttoDefendants’MotionforSummary
JudgmentastoPlaintiffsquantttmmerititclaims.Torecoveronthetheoryofquasi-contract,a
plaintiffmustprove“thatthedefendant...receivedabenefit,andthatretentionofthebenefit
withoutpaymentthereforwouldbeunjust.”Ca/lanav.OalcvvoodParkHomesCorp.,91N.J.
Super.105,108(App.Div.1966).Quantummerttit,orbreachofimpliedcontract,isaform
ofquasi-contract.Kopinv.OrangeProducts,Inc..297N.J.Super.353,367(App.Div.1997).
“Quasi-contractsareimposedbylawtobringaboutjustice,withoutreferencetotheparties’
intent.”Kopin,N.J.Super.at366-67.Thus,quantummerttitenablesapartytorecoverthe
reasonablevalueofservicesrenderedintheabsenceofacontractgoverningwagesor
remuneration.Id.at367.
Onceagain,summaryjudgmentmaynotissueinDefendants’favor.Asnotedabove,the
recordbeforetheCourtdoesnotestablishthatDefendantsdidnotreceiveabenefit.Moreover,
therecordisdevoidofanyevidencethatretentionofthepurportedbenefittoDefendantswould
notresultinaninjusticetoPlaintiffTheCourtreiteratesthat,asthemovants,itistheirburdento
showthattheevidenceentitlesthemtojudgmentasamatteroflaw,andtheyhavefailedtodoso.
7
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 264     Filed 05/22/18     Page 7 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>
Assuch,theCourtmustdenyDefendants’MotionforSummaryJudgmentwithrespectto
PlaintiffsquantwnmerititclailTis.
IV.CONCLUSION
Fortheaforementionedreasons,Defendants’MotionforSummaryJudgmentishereby
denied.AnappropriateOrderaccompaniesthisOpinion.
DATED:Mayç,2018
OSL.IXNJARES
iefJudge,UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
8
Case 2:13-cv-00650-BRM-JSA     Document 264     Filed 05/22/18     Page 8 of 8 PageID:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight