Tarazi et al v. Truehope Inc. et al
| Nadia Tarazi and Micronutrient Solutions, Inc. |
| Truehope Inc., Open Mind Consulting, Inc., Dana Ray Stringam, Autumn Strngam and Quintessential Biosciences, LLC |
| 1:2013cv01024 |
| February 14, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| New York |
| James C. Francis |
| Lewis A. Kaplan |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
| Plaintiff |
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
148
ORDER for 130 Motion to Dismiss filed by Truehope Inc.; 142 Report and Recommendations; 134 Motion to Dismiss filed by Quintessential Biosciences, LLC. In a characteristically thorough and careful report and recommendation (the " ;R&R"), Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV recommends that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. Truehope and QSciences object to aspects of the R&R. The objections all are overruled. The defendants' motions [DI 130 and 134] are granted to the extent set forth in the R&R and otherwise denied in all respects. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/30/2017) (anc)
|
|
Filing
122
ORDER RULING ON MOTION OF THE STRINGAMS AND OPEN MIND TO DISMISS re: 75 Motion to Dismiss filed by Autumn Stringam, Dana Ray Stringam, Open Mind Consulting, Inc. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV has recommended that the motion of the String ams and Open Mind [DI 75] be granted in part and denied in part. Substantially for the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation, the motion is granted to the extent that (1) the breach of contract claim in Claim 1 premised on the assignment agreement, (2) the claim for an accounting (Claim 7) as asserted against Mr. Stringam, and (3) the spoliation claim (Claim 9) are dismissed. The motion is denied in all other respects. The movants' objections to the report and recommendation are overruled. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 12/6/2016) (cla)
|
|
Filing
118
ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF THE SYNERGY GROUP OF CANADA, INC. TO DISMISS adopting in part 102 Report and Recommendations, granting 88 Motion to Dismiss filed by The Synergy Group of Canada, Inc. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV recomm ends that I grant the motion of The Synergy Group of Canada, Inc. ("Synergy") to dismiss the second amended complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs have not (1) properly escaped the need to plead a basis of direct liability against Synergy, if their theory is direct liability, by purporting to define "Truehope," as used in the second amended complaint (the "SAC") to include both Truehope Inc. and Synergy nor (2) sufficiently stated a claim against Synergy on the theory that it is Truehope's alter ego. Plaintiffs object, arguing that the second of Judge Francis' conclusions is mistaken and that the first misses the point because they have pled in the alternative, as permitted by Rule 8(d )(2), that Synergy or Truehope Inc. is directly liable. I see no error of law in Judge Francis' conclusion that the SAC does not adequately allege that Truehope Inc. and Synergy are alter egos. Among other things, plaintiffs do not even chall enge his conclusion that "the plaintiff has not alleged that either company 'misused the corporate form...so as to commit a fraud or wrongdoing" against them (DI 102, at 13-14), which would be fatal even if the allegations of complet e dominion or commingling were sufficient. Nor do I see any problem with the first of Judge Francis' conclusions. The fact of the matter is that the plaintiffs have not pled direct claims against each of Truehope Inc. and Synergy in the al ternative, whether expressly in reliance on Rule 8(d)(2) or otherwise. What they have done is filed a complaint that far more closely resembles two eggs scrambled together than two separate fried eggs. Whether as a technical matter of pleading or simply in service of clarity and understandability, the Court will not permit this. Accordingly, Synergy's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (DI 88) is granted. Leave to replead is granted, but no amended complaint shall be filed until the Court rules on the last of the motions to dismiss dealt with in Judge Francis' report and recommendation. If the Court does not by then grant leave to replead as to any other defendant, plaintiffs shall file any amended compl aint against Synergy no later than thirty days after the filing of the Court's ruling on the final motion. If it does grant leave to replead as to any other defendant, the last such ruling will set a deadline for the filing of any amended complaint as to all defendants as to which leave is granted. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 8/25/2016) (mro)
|
|
Filing
56
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 50 Motion to Stay ; granting 24 Motion to Stay ; granting 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; granting 27 Motion to Stay ; granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply.Fo r the foregoing reasons the motion to stay filed by Truehope Inc., in which all defendants joined (Docket no. 24), and the motions of Quintessential Biosciences, LLC (Docket no. 27), and Open Mind Consulting (Docket no. 50), are granted. The parties are directed to submit a joint status update to the Court 60 days from the date of this Order and every sixty days thereafter until the stay is lifted. In addition, the defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint is extended until 21 days after the stay is lifted. (Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis on 7/24/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (lmb)
|
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 New York Southern 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.
