The Wimbledon Fund, SPC (Class TT) v. Bergstein et al
| THE WIMBLEDON FUND, SPC (CLASS TT) |
| David Bergstein, Aaron Grunfeld, Kiarash Jam and Jerome Swartz |
| 2:2016cv02287 |
| April 4, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Christina A. Snyder |
| Andrew J. Wistrich |
| Contract: Other |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
102
JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as set forth in the Courts Civil Minutes [Dkt. No. 426].2. Defendant Kiarash Jams Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED asset forth in the Courts Civil Minute s [Dkt. No. 426]. 3. Defendant Kiarash Jam is hereby declared jointly and severally liable, pursuant to Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 21.223 (b), for the contractual obligations owed by Swartz IP Services Group Inc., a/k/a Advisory IP Services Inc . (SIP) to Wimbledon, which arose out of the Note Purchase Agreement, entered into by Wimbledon and SIP in November 2011. 4. Judgment is awarded in favor of Plaintiff The Wimbledon Fund, SPC (Class TT) and against Defendant Kiarash Jam in the amounts which are due and owing, minus amounts received in partial satisfaction, on the judgment Plaintiff The Wimbledon Fund, SPC (Class TT) obtained against SIP on November 24, 2015 in the Supreme Court of the State ofNew York, County of New York, Index N o. 650446/2013 (the SIP Judgment), after Wimbledon sued SIP for breach of contract. The parties have stipulated that this sum equals $17,666,791.61, dkt. Judgment is awarded in favor of Plaintiff, The Wimbledon Fund, SPC(Class TT) and against Defendant, Integrated Administration for $2,320,000.00, which amount consists of the fraudulent conveyances that Integrated Administration received from SIP. (lc)
|
|
Filing
98
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: RE THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Dkts. [ 380 ], [381 ], [ 382 ], filed on December 20,2018). The Court hereby DISMISSES third-party plaintiffs claims for equitable indemnification and c ontribution with prejudice. The Court also DISMISSES third-party plaintiffs claim for negligent misrepresentation without prejudice. Third-party plaintiffs claim for fraudulent misrepresentation is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Third-party plaintiff s may amend their allegations to allege facts that demonstrate that this claim is not time-barred, and their amended complaint is due within 14 days of the date of this order. Third-party plaintiffs ex parte application is DENIED as moot. (lc). Modified on 6/7/2019. (lc).
|
|
Filing
94
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS)THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Dkts. 380 , 381 , 382 , filed on December 20, 2018) ; DEFENDANTS JAM AND INTEGRATED ADMINISTRATION'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (Dkt. 386 , filed on January 22, 2019); MOTI ON TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL (Dkt. 388 , filed on January 28, 2019) by Judge Christina A. Snyder. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court directs the parties to pursue jurisdictional discovery, and RESERVES ruling on third party defendants' mo tions to dismiss until the jurisdictional discovery is completed. The discovery period shall not exceed forty-five (45) days and the scope of discovery is limited to actions related to the forum-based negotiations, transactions, meetings and other ev ents at issue in this case. Seven (7) days after the forty-five (45) day discovery period closes, plaintiff shall file memorandums not to exceed ten (10) pages, setting forth facts demonstrating the availability of personal jurisdiction. Third-party defendants, in their individual capacities, can respond seven days thereafter, also by filing a memorandum not to exceed ten (10) pages. The parties are directed not to submit any further briefing on the other grounds underlying their motion to dismi ss. The Court DENIES Jam and IAs motion for leave to amend. The Court GRANTS HYGM's motion to withdraw. The moving parties are hereby ordered to provide the Hallac defendants with notice of the Court's order in accordance with Local Rule 83 -2.3.4. Since Weston is a corporate entity, and as such may not appear pro se, the moving parties are ordered to inform Weston that it must retain new counsel within thirty (30) days of the date this order takes effect. The moving parties shall advis e Weston that its failure to retain new counsel or otherwise respond within thirty (30) days may result in the imposition of sanctions or the entry of default. The moving parties shall attach a copy of this order to the letter, and shall otherwise comply with all applicable rules of professional responsibility. IT IS SO ORDERED. (lom)
|
|
Filing
86
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Defendant Jerome Swartz's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, Improper Venue, and Failure to State a Claim 82 . The Court DENIES AS MOOT the instant motion to the extent it challenges jurisdiction and venue in the Southern District of Texas. Moreover, in light of the fact that the Court denies Swartz's motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and improper venue, the C ourt declines to reach the portions of the motion asserting that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief. Finally, the Court notes that its denial of the instant motion is without prejudice to the filing of a new motion challenging jurisdiction and venue in the Central District of California and whether plaintiff has adequately stated a claim for relief. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
