Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jordan v. Mirra

United States District Court, D. Delaware

November 28, 2017

GIGI JORDAN, Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND A. MIRRA, et al. Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM

          GERALD AUSTIN MCHUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This is a diversity action referred to Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon for a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) on a Motion to Dismiss. Judge Fallon has prepared a comprehensive and well-reasoned report (D.I. 199) and for the reasons that follow I will adopt it in its entirety.

         The vast majority of Judge Fallon's conclusions are not challenged, and are therefore reviewed only for clear error. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). I find none.

         My endorsement includes Judge Fallon's conclusions that:

1. the Mutual General Release Document (D.I. 200-2) [hereinafter “the Release”], if accepted as valid, bars all claims except Plaintiff Gigi Jordan's breach of warranty claim (Count VII) and her claim for declaratory relief (Count X);
2. the statute of limitations does not bar Plaintiff's breach of warranty claim; but
3. the surviving warranty claim cannot serve as a legal predicate for her declaratory judgment claim.

         My endorsement further extends to Judge Fallon's alternative bases for her conclusion:

4. that, even if the Release were deemed inapplicable, New York's six-year statute of limitations bars Plaintiff's breach of contract on promissory notes claim (Count I), much of her accounting claim (Count II) as to all Defendants, and her fraudulent inducement claim (Count V) as to Defendants Troilo, Tropiano, and Kolleda;
5. New York's three-year statute of limitations bars Plaintiff's common law fraud claims (Count III) as to Defendant's Troilo, Kolleda, Kovinsky, and Tropiano, her breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count VI) as to Defendants Mirra, Troilo, and Kolleda, and her unjust enrichment claim (Count VIII) as to all Defendants; and
6. her aiding and abetting fraud claim (Count IV) is time-barred under either statute of limitations.

         Finally, as an additional alternative basis for dismissal of Plaintiff's common law fraud claim based on alleged forgeries, Judge Fallon concluded that it was insufficiently pleaded because only third parties relied on the purportedly forged documents. As the controlling standard, Judge Fallon properly applied Pasternack v. Lab Corp., 2014 WL 4832299 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).[1]

         Turning to Plaintiff's objections, Defendants rightly point out that those objections principally rely on arguments that were not before Judge Fallon, and Plaintiff makes no effort to show good cause (D.I. 200-2). This is contrary to this Court's Standing Order for Objections, and the Magistrate's Act, and could therefore be considered waived.[2] I will nonetheless address the merits.

         Plaintiff's objections are threefold: that it was improper (a) to dismiss all her claims except for breach of warranty on the basis of the Release, because the Release does not cover her fraud and fraudulent inducement claims (Counts III and V, respectively); (b) to dismiss her fraud and fraudulent inducement claims against defendant Mirra for lack of justifiable reliance because justifiable reliance cannot be determined at the pleading stage; and (c) to dismiss her fraud and fraudulent inducement claims, otherwise subject ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.