throbber
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01m2018 02:17 PM
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`NYSC 3F DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`106
`.
`
`INDEX N0. 518372/2017 l
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`R«.C«.IV«.D \IYSCEF: 01/03/2018 ;
`
`EXHIBIT “K”
`
`
`
`

`

`PM
`: 29
`11/15/2017
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`FILED:
`CLERK
`02
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`-cv-
`-LT
`50âSe
`l:10-CV-08442-LTS
`10/28/11
`Document56
`Filed
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`Pag@st
`YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`COURT
`DISTRICT
`STATES
`UNITED
`OF NEW YORK
`SOUTHERN
`DISTRICT
`
`-X
`
`DOCUMWir
`4 EXKTRONICAUT
`
`DATE
`
`MLED:
`
`WADE
`
`ROBERTSON,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-v-
`
`WILLIAM
`
`C. CARTINHOURe_t
`
`al,
`
`Defendants.
`
`- —- " - ——-" —-X
`
`MIPED
`
`2 8 DCT
`
`208
`

`
`No.
`
`10 Civ.
`
`8442
`
`(LTS)(HBP)
`
`MEMORANDUMORDERGRANTING
`
`MOTIONSTO
`
`TRANSFER
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Wade Robertson
`
`("Plaintiff"
`
`or
`
`"Robertson"
`"Robertson")
`
`brings
`
`this
`
`action
`
`against
`
`Defendants
`
`William
`
`C. Cartinhour,
`
`Jr.
`.lr.
`
`("Cartinhour"),
`
`Albert
`
`Schibani,
`
`Patrick
`
`J. Keamey,
`
`Michael
`
`Bramnick,
`
`Robert
`
`S. Selzer,
`
`Carlton
`
`T. Obeeny,
`
`James G. Dattaro,
`
`Neil Gurvitch,
`
`Andrew
`
`R. Polott,
`
`H. Mark
`
`Rabin,
`
`Elyse
`
`L. Strickland
`
`(collectively,
`
`the "Attorney
`
`Defendants"
`Defendants"),
`
`Vesna
`
`Kustudic,
`
`Tanja Milicevic
`
`(a.k.a.
`
`Tanja Popovic),
`
`and Aleksander
`
`Popovic.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`18 U.S.C.
`
`for
`
`asserts RICO claims
`
`under
`
`§§ 1962(c)
`
`and (d), as well
`
`as claims
`
`fraud,
`
`defamation,
`
`and tortious
`
`interference.
`
`The Court
`
`has jurisdiction
`
`of
`
`the action
`
`pursuant
`
`to 28 IJ.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331
`
`and
`
`1367.
`
`Defendants
`
`have moved
`
`to dismiss
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`claims
`
`or,
`
`in the alternative,
`
`to transfer
`
`this action
`
`to the United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`(the "D.C.
`
`Court"
`Court"),
`
`or
`
`to stay
`
`this
`
`action
`
`pending
`
`a determination
`
`of
`
`the related
`
`case before
`
`the D.C. Court.
`
`After
`
`Defendants
`
`tiled
`
`their motion
`
`to dismiss,
`
`the D.C. Court
`
`entered
`
`a judgment
`
`in favor
`
`of
`
`Defendant
`
`Cartinhour
`
`in the related
`
`case.
`
`Subsequently,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`moved
`
`for,
`
`inter
`
`alia,
`
`a stay of
`
`ROBFRTSONY.('AI<TINIIOuB.VI'PD
`
`'l I fciflP,
`
`lit Bit
`
`l I
`
`I
`
`

`

`KINGS
`COUNTY
`11/15/2017
`CLERK
`: 29
`:
`[FILED
`02
`PH
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`50aSe
`1:10-cv-08442-LTS
`56
`Document
`RIed
`10/28/11
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`5183 /Z / ZU1 1
`1NDEX NO.
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`Pag@alf)(di.@YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`the instant
`
`action
`
`and an order
`
`authorizing
`
`alternate
`
`service
`
`on Defendant
`
`Milicevic.
`
`For
`
`the
`
`following
`
`reasons,
`
`Defendants'
`
`motion
`
`is granted
`
`to the extent
`
`that
`
`this
`
`case is transferred
`
`to the
`
`D.C. Court.
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`motion
`
`for a stay and for authorization
`
`of alternative
`
`service
`
`is denied.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Unless
`
`otherwise
`
`noted,
`
`the following
`
`facts
`
`are alleged
`
`in the complaint
`
`and taken
`
`as true for purposes
`
`of
`
`this motion
`
`practice.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Wade Robertson
`
`is an attorney
`
`and resident
`
`of Tennessee.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 3, 20.)
`
`Defendant
`
`William
`
`C. Cartinbour
`
`lives
`
`and operates
`
`businesses
`
`in the Washington,
`
`D.C.
`
`- Maryland
`
`- Virginia
`
`metropolitan
`
`area.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 25.)
`
`In
`
`September
`
`2004,
`
`Robertson
`
`and Cartinhour
`
`formed
`
`a partnership,
`
`W.A.R.
`
`LLP
`
`("W.A.R."
`
`or
`
`the
`
`"Partnership"
`"Partnership"),
`
`in the District
`
`of Columbia,
`
`through
`
`which
`
`Robertson
`
`was
`
`to work
`
`as an attorney
`
`in connection
`
`with
`
`securities
`
`class
`
`actions,
`
`while
`
`Cartinhour
`
`was
`
`to develop
`
`a related
`
`consulting
`
`business
`
`ancillary
`
`to Robertson's
`
`legal
`
`services.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 30, 35.)
`
`In particular,
`
`Robertson
`
`was to focus
`
`on a securities
`
`class
`
`action,
`
`the "Liu
`
`Action",
`
`that had been filed
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of Florida,
`
`then transferred
`
`to the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 20-24.)
`
`Robertson
`
`and Cartinhour
`
`agreed
`
`to contribute
`
`services
`
`and cash to the partnership,
`
`and that
`
`any
`
`profits
`
`from Robertson's
`
`legal work
`
`or Cartinhour's
`
`consulting
`
`work
`
`would
`
`be reinvested
`
`in the
`
`partnership.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 31.)
`
`Between
`
`September
`
`2004
`
`and April
`
`2006, Cartinhour
`
`contributed
`
`$3.5
`
`n1illion
`
`in cash to the Partnership
`
`and, between
`
`September
`
`2004
`
`and August
`
`2009,
`
`Robertson
`
`contributed
`
`$3.83 million
`
`in services.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 84.)
`
`As part
`
`of
`
`the partnership
`
`agreement,
`
`Cartinhour
`
`signed
`
`an "Indemnification,
`
`Hold Harmless,
`
`and Agreement
`
`to Waive
`
`All
`
`with
`of default
`certificates
`also sought
`motion
`Plaintiff's
`of Court
`have not appeared.
`has issued
`The Clerk
`who
`
`defendants
`to certain
`respect
`certificates.
`the requested
`
`ROULILTSONcAILTlNHOUR.iYPL)
`V.
`
`VI":I<SIC)N10'ZRI I
`
`

`

`: 29
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`11/15/2017
`: KINGS
`FILED
`02
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`Pli
`-cv-
`56
`Filed
`10/28/11
`5CaSe
`1:10-CV-08442-LT$
`Document
`-LT
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`INDEX
`
`/ Z / ZU1/
`NO. Didd
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`Pli@E%9fdlihYSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`Claims"
`
`document
`
`(the "Indemnification
`
`Agreement"
`Agreement"),
`
`stating
`
`that he would
`
`not
`
`"make
`
`any
`
`claims
`
`or demands,
`
`or
`
`file
`
`any
`
`legal
`
`proceedings
`
`against
`
`[plaintiff]
`
`Wade
`
`A. Robertson,"
`
`including
`
`claims
`
`concerning
`
`"any
`
`future
`
`injuries.
`
`losses,
`
`and damages
`
`not not
`
`known
`
`or
`
`anticipated,
`
`but which may
`
`letter
`
`develop
`
`or be
`
`discovered."
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 66: Af6rmation
`
`of Peter
`
`C. Contino
`
`in Support
`
`re: Motion
`
`to Dismiss,
`
`Exh. D,
`
`lan.
`
`13, 201 1, ECF No.
`
`21.)
`
`Action"
`
`By February
`
`2008, Robertson
`
`had exhausted
`
`all efforts
`
`in the "Liiu
`
`which
`
`yielded
`
`no profit
`
`for
`
`the Partnership.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 69.)
`
`He then began
`
`investigating
`
`another
`
`securities
`
`class
`
`action matter,
`
`on which
`
`he continued
`
`working
`
`until
`
`August
`
`2009.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 71.)
`
`On January
`
`9, 2009,
`
`and February
`
`6, 2009, Cartinhour,
`
`through
`
`his attorney,
`
`Defendant
`
`Albert
`
`Schibani,
`
`contacted
`
`Robertson
`
`demanding
`
`the return
`
`of all
`
`the money
`
`that Cartinhour
`
`had
`
`invested
`
`in the Partnership.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 72, 74.) Robertson
`
`did not
`
`return
`
`any money
`
`to
`
`through
`
`Cartinhour.
`
`On August
`
`14, 2009,
`
`and August
`
`21, 2009, Cartinhour,
`
`his attorney,
`
`Defendant
`
`Carlton
`
`Obeeny,
`
`served
`
`additional
`
`demand
`
`letters
`
`on Robertson
`
`and informed
`
`him
`
`that Cartinhour
`
`would
`
`file
`
`suit
`
`if
`
`the money
`
`was not
`
`returned.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 76.)
`
`The D.C.
`
`Action
`
`In response
`
`to these
`
`demand
`
`letters,
`
`on August
`
`28, 2009, Robertson
`
`filed
`
`a
`
`complaint
`
`in the United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`(the
`
`"D.C.
`
`Action"
`Action")
`
`judgment
`
`enforcing
`
`the Indemnification
`
`Agreement
`
`that Cartinhour
`
`had
`
`seeking
`
`a declaratory
`
`signed.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶ 79.)
`
`Cartinhour,
`
`through
`
`his attorneys,
`
`Selzer Gurvitch
`
`Rabin & Obeeny,
`
`filed
`
`an answer
`
`and counter-complaint
`
`on October
`
`28, 2009,
`
`and later
`
`filed
`
`an amended
`
`counter-
`
`complaint.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 80.)
`
`The
`
`amended
`
`counter-complaint
`
`asserted
`
`several
`
`claims
`
`against
`
`Robertson,
`
`including
`
`fraud,
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`fiduciary
`
`duty,
`
`breach
`
`of partnership
`
`agreement,
`
`and
`
`negligent
`
`misrepresentation.
`
`(See Compl.
`
`¶ 81.)
`
`Robertson
`
`proceeded
`
`to file
`
`numerous
`
`motions
`
`lVPI)
`Il
`Ill)IJI'fCI'IlIN'i'.( AllIINII( 'll,
`
`4Il<xi<lh I'I < 11
`
`

`

`COUNTY
`CLERK
`KINGS
`: 29
`11/15/2017
`FILED
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`02
`:
`PH
`-cv-
`10/28/11
`5ÇaSel:10-CV-08442-LTS
`Document
`RIed
`56
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`5183/2/2017
`NO.
`INDEX
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`Pag@s4finl
`11/15/2017
`YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`in the D.C. Court
`
`as well
`
`as in the United
`
`States Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`for
`
`the D.C. Circuit.
`
`See, e.g.,
`
`Robertson
`
`v. Cartinhour,
`
`691 F.Supp.
`
`2d 65, 68-74
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`2010);
`
`Robertson
`
`v. Cartinhour,
`
`711
`
`F.Supp.
`
`2d 136 (D.D.C.
`
`2010).
`
`On November
`
`9, 2010, Robertson
`
`filed
`
`the instant
`
`action
`
`in this Court,
`
`alleging
`
`that Cartinhour
`
`and the Attorney
`
`Defendants
`
`had violated
`
`various
`
`federal
`
`laws,
`
`including
`
`RICO,
`
`during
`
`the course
`
`of
`
`the D.C.
`
`Action.
`
`(Compl.
`
`¶¶ 109-149.)
`
`Shortly
`
`thereafter,
`
`Defendants
`
`filed
`
`motions
`
`to dismiss
`
`or,
`
`in the alternative,
`
`to transfer
`
`this action
`
`to the D.C. Court.
`
`While
`
`Defendants'
`
`motions
`
`were
`
`pending,
`
`the D.C.
`
`Action
`
`went
`
`to trial
`
`and, on February
`
`18, 201 1,„ the
`
`jury
`
`duty
`
`in that action
`
`rendered
`
`a verdict,
`
`finding
`
`that Robertson
`
`was
`
`liable
`
`for breach
`
`of
`
`fiduciary
`
`and for
`
`legal malpractice
`
`and awarding
`
`Cartinhour
`
`$7 million
`
`in compensatory
`
`and punitive
`
`damages.
`
`v. Cartinhour,
`
`No.
`
`2011 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS
`
`31959
`
`(D.D.C.
`
`leg Robertson
`
`09-1642,
`
`Mar.
`
`28, 2011).
`
`On March
`
`16, 2011,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Robertson
`
`moved
`
`in this Court
`
`to stay
`
`this
`
`action.
`
`Partnership
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Proceedings
`
`An involuntary
`
`Chapter
`
`11 bankruptcy
`
`petition
`
`was
`
`filed
`
`against
`
`the Partnership
`
`in November
`
`2010.
`
`Thereafter,
`
`issues were
`
`raised,
`
`and decided
`
`against
`
`Robertson
`
`and the
`
`Partnership
`
`in the bankruptcy
`
`and district
`
`courts,
`
`as to whether
`
`Cartinhour's
`
`continued
`
`pursuit
`
`of
`
`his counterclaims
`
`in the D.C. Action
`
`violated
`
`the automatic
`
`stay
`
`imposed
`
`by section
`
`362 of
`
`the
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Code,
`
`1 1 U.S.C.
`
`§ 362.
`
`S_ee Memorandum
`
`Decision
`
`re Ray Connolly's
`
`Motion
`
`for
`
`Order
`
`of Civil
`
`Contempt
`
`and for Sanctions
`
`for Violating
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Stay,
`
`filed
`
`as docket
`
`entry
`
`no. 164 in In re W.A.R.
`
`LLP,
`
`Chap.
`
`11 Case No.
`
`11-00044
`
`(Bankr.
`
`D.D.C.
`
`June
`
`15, 2011).
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404(a)
`
`provides
`
`that,
`
`"[fjor
`
`the convenience
`
`of
`
`the parties
`
`and
`
`
`
`V.ROIII!R1'St)N('Alt'f)NIIDlllt.)YI'D
`
`Vhltdi()hIt) Sk
`
`

`

`: 29
`11/15/2017
`KINGS
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`FILED:
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`02
`PM|
`-cv-
`Document
`Filed
`56
`10/28/11
`-LT
`1:10-CV-08442-LTS
`ase
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`INDEX
`
`5183/2/201/
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`Pag@fifdril.%YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`witnesses,
`
`in the interest
`
`of
`
`justice,
`
`a district
`
`court may
`
`transfer
`
`any
`
`civil
`
`action
`
`to any other
`
`district
`
`or division
`
`where
`
`it might
`
`have
`
`been
`
`brought."
`
`A district
`
`court
`
`has broad
`
`discretion
`
`to
`
`transfer
`
`venue.
`
`In re Cuyahoea
`
`Equipment
`
`Corp.,
`
`980 F.2d
`
`110,
`
`117 (2d Cir.
`
`1992).
`
`In deciding
`
`a motion
`
`to transfer,
`
`the Court
`
`conducts
`
`a two-pronged
`
`analysis:
`
`whether
`
`the action
`
`could
`
`have
`
`been brought
`
`in the transferee
`
`district
`
`and,
`
`if yes, whether
`
`transfer
`
`would
`
`be an appropriate
`
`exercise
`
`of
`
`the Court's
`
`discretion.
`
`Mattel,
`
`Inc.
`
`v. Robarb's,
`
`Inc.,
`
`139 F. Supp.
`
`2d 487,
`
`490
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`2001).
`
`This Action
`
`Could
`
`Have
`
`Been Brought
`
`in the Transferee
`
`District
`
`A court may
`
`only
`
`transfer
`
`an action
`
`pursuant
`
`to § 1404(a)
`
`if
`
`the transferee
`
`district
`
`has personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`the defendants
`
`and the transferee
`
`district
`
`is an appropriate
`
`venue.
`
`The District
`
`of Columbia
`
`meets
`
`both
`
`of
`
`these
`
`criteria.
`
`Defendants
`
`Appear
`
`to be Subject
`
`to Personal
`
`Jurisdiction
`
`in the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`Plaintiff
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`this Court
`
`has personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over Cartinhour
`
`and the
`
`Attorney
`
`Defendants
`
`pursuant
`
`to 18 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1965(a)
`
`and (b).
`
`18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1965(a)
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`"any
`
`civil
`
`action
`
`or proceeding
`
`under
`
`[RICO]
`
`against
`
`any person may be instituted
`
`in the
`
`district
`
`court
`
`of
`
`the United
`
`States
`
`for any district
`
`in which
`
`such person
`
`resides,
`
`is found,
`
`has an
`
`agent,
`
`or
`
`transacts
`
`his
`
`affairs."
`
`18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1965(b)
`
`further
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`if
`
`"the
`
`ends
`
`of
`
`justice
`
`before
`
`the
`
`court,"
`
`require
`
`that other
`
`parties
`
`residing
`
`in any other
`
`district
`
`be brought
`
`the court may
`
`exercise
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`those
`
`parties
`
`as well.
`
`Therefore,
`
`"a civil
`
`RICO
`
`action
`
`can . . .
`
`be brought
`
`in a district
`
`court where
`
`personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`based
`
`on minimum
`
`contacts
`
`is
`
`established
`
`as to at
`
`least
`
`one
`
`defendant."
`
`PT United
`
`Can Co.
`
`v. Crown
`
`Corp & Seal Co.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`138 F.3d
`
`65, 71 (2d Cir.
`
`1998).
`
`Plaintiff"
`Plaintiff's
`
`assertion
`
`of
`
`the propriety
`
`of
`
`this Court's
`
`exercise
`
`of personal
`
`1<I>i<fritra<)x t. (' (I<TII'IIIII.It
`
`tv
`i'll
`
`t Ii<el<inII<ds 11
`
`

`

`11/15/2017
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: KINGS
`FILED
`02
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`:29
`PM)
`-cv-
`Document
`10/28/11
`56
`5<Çase
`1:10-cv-08442-LT$
`Mled
`-LT
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`/ZU1/
`5183/Z
`INDEX
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`Pggfigdd.%YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`!!
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`all defendants
`
`named
`
`in this
`
`action
`
`is premised
`
`on his allegations
`
`that
`
`Defendants
`
`Kustudic,
`
`Milicevic
`
`and Popovic
`
`reside,
`
`and/or may be found,
`
`in New York.2
`
`The
`
`active
`
`litigation
`
`of
`
`the D.C.
`
`Action
`
`in the D.C. Court
`
`against
`
`Cartinhour,
`
`with
`
`no issue
`
`raised
`
`by
`
`Cartinhour
`
`as to the propriety
`
`of
`
`that
`
`court's
`
`exercise
`
`of
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`him,
`
`indicates,
`
`particularly
`
`in light
`
`of Defendants'
`
`alternative
`
`request
`
`for
`
`transfer
`
`of
`
`the litigation
`
`to the D.C.
`
`Court,
`
`that
`
`the D.C. Court
`
`has personal
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over Cartinhour
`
`at a minimum.
`
`On the basis
`
`of
`
`that
`
`court's
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over Cartinhour,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`is at
`
`least as well
`
`poised
`
`to invoke
`
`18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1965(b)
`
`as the basis
`
`for
`
`the exercise
`
`of
`
`jurisdiction
`
`over
`
`the other Defendants
`
`as he is to do so
`
`in this Court
`
`based
`
`on the alleged
`
`presence
`
`or
`
`residence
`
`of Kustidic.
`
`Milicevic
`
`and Popovie.
`
`The District
`
`of Columbia
`
`is an Appropriate
`
`Venue
`
`for
`
`this Action
`
`Under
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391(b)(2),
`
`venue
`
`is proper
`
`in a judicial
`
`district
`
`"in which
`
`a
`
`substantial
`
`part of
`
`the events
`
`or omissions
`
`giving
`
`rise to the claim occurred,
`
`or a substantial
`
`part
`
`of property
`
`that
`
`is the subject
`
`of
`
`the action
`
`is
`
`situated."
`situated."
`
`Plaintiff
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the Southern
`
`District
`
`ofNew
`
`York
`
`is the appropriate
`
`venue
`
`for
`
`this action
`
`because
`
`the "L_iu
`
`Action,"
`
`the securities
`
`class
`
`action
`
`brought
`
`in this district,
`
`was
`
`"the
`
`genesis,
`
`epicenter,
`
`and foundation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`relationship
`
`flow."
`
`claims
`
`and business
`
`between
`
`Defendant
`
`Cartinhour
`
`and Robertson
`
`from which
`
`Robertson's
`
`(Plaintiff's
`
`Response
`
`in Opposition
`
`to
`
`Defendants'
`
`Motions
`
`to Dismiss
`
`2, Mar.
`
`7,
`
`2011,
`
`ECF No. 34.) Without
`
`addressing
`
`the merits
`
`of
`
`that argument,
`
`the Court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the
`
`District
`
`of Columbia
`
`is also an appropriate
`
`venue
`
`for
`
`this
`
`action.
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`claims
`
`stem from
`
`2
`
`resides
`and/or
`be found
`Kustudic
`states
`Plaintiff
`that Vesna
`In his complaint,
`"may
`..
`a citizen
`of Serbia who
`that Tanja Milicevic
`"is
`New York";
`New York
`County,
`and/or
`her affairs
`and also transacts
`New York,
`in New York
`may be found
`County,
`"is a
`Popovic
`in New York
`and that Aleksandar
`has an agent
`New York";
`County,
`and also
`New York,
`. . may be found
`in New York
`citizen
`of Serbia who
`.
`County,
`New York."
`(Compl.
`in New York
`his affairs
`and/or
`has an agent
`transacts
`County,
`14-16.)
`
`in
`.
`
`¶¶
`
`DAI<'1'IN1<OUIKXVI'I)
`ROBI-IUISOM'C.
`
`vl/(SIIJI IO"-'81I
`
`(i
`
`

`

`11/15/2017
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`FILED
`CLERK
`: 29
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`:
`02
`PM
`-cv-
`50aSe
`Document
`-LT
`1:10-cv-08442-LTS
`56
`Filed
`10/28/11
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`INDEX
`
`518372/2017
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`YSCEF:
`]
`11/15/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`Pag@Elf
`
`i
`
`the partnership
`
`between
`
`himself
`
`and Cartinhour,
`
`which
`
`was allegedly
`
`formed
`
`in the District
`
`of
`
`Columbia,
`
`and the subsequent
`
`litigation
`
`surrounding
`
`that partnership,
`
`which
`
`took
`
`place
`
`in the
`
`D.C. Court.
`
`These
`
`circumstances
`
`are sufficient
`
`to demonstrate
`
`that a substantial
`
`part
`
`of
`
`the
`
`events
`
`or omissions
`
`giving
`
`rise to this
`
`action
`
`occurred
`
`in the District
`
`of Columbia.
`
`Transfer
`
`to the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`is an Appropriate
`
`Exercise
`
`of
`
`this Court's
`
`Discretion
`
`When
`
`whether
`
`transfer
`
`is an appropriate
`
`exercise
`
`of discretion,
`
`courts
`
`determining
`
`consider
`
`several
`
`factors,
`
`including:
`
`(1)
`
`the convenience
`
`of witnesses;
`
`(2)
`
`the convenience
`
`of
`
`the
`
`parties;
`
`(3)
`
`the location
`
`of
`
`relevant
`
`documents
`
`and the relative
`
`ease of access
`
`to sources
`
`of proof;
`
`(4)
`
`the locus
`
`of operative
`
`facts;
`
`(5)
`
`the availability
`
`of process
`
`to compel
`
`the attendance
`
`ol'
`of
`
`unwilling
`
`witnesses;
`
`(6)
`
`the relative
`
`means
`
`of
`
`the parties;
`
`(7)
`
`the forum's
`
`familiarity
`
`with
`
`the
`
`law;
`
`(8)
`
`the weight
`
`accorded
`
`the plaintiff's
`
`choice
`
`of
`
`forum;
`
`and (9)
`
`trial
`
`efficiency
`
`governing
`
`and the interests
`
`ofjustice,
`
`based
`
`on the totality
`
`of
`
`the circumstances.
`
`Reliance
`
`Insurance
`
`Co.
`
`v.
`
`Six Star,
`
`Inc.,
`
`155 F. Supp.
`
`2d 49, 56-57
`
`(S.D.N.Y.
`
`2001);
`
`In re Nematron
`
`Corp.
`
`Secs.
`
`Litig.,
`
`., 30
`
`F. Supp.
`
`2d 397,
`
`400 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`1998).
`
`Even
`
`a brief
`
`review
`
`of
`
`these
`
`factors
`
`leans
`
`in favor
`
`of
`
`transfer
`
`to the District
`
`of Columbia.
`
`With
`
`the exception
`
`of
`
`the three Serbian
`
`defendants,
`
`Popovic,
`
`Kustudic,
`
`and
`
`Milicevic,
`
`all other
`
`defendants
`
`and witnesses
`
`are in the D.C. metropolitan
`
`area.
`
`All
`
`relevant
`
`used in the
`
`documents
`
`are in the District
`
`of Columbia,
`
`and such documents
`
`that were
`
`actually
`
`trial
`
`of
`
`the D.C. Action
`
`are part of
`
`the record
`
`in that Court.
`
`The
`
`operative
`
`events
`
`relevant
`
`to
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`claims
`
`- the formation
`
`of
`
`the partnership
`
`between
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and Defendant
`
`Cartinhour,
`
`and the subsequent
`
`litigation
`
`brought
`
`on Cartinhour's
`
`behalf
`
`by the Attorney
`
`Defendants
`
`- took
`
`place
`
`in the District
`
`of Columbia,
`
`which
`
`is thus
`
`the locus
`
`of operative
`
`facts.
`
`Most
`
`importantly,
`
`trial
`
`efficiency
`
`and the interests
`
`of
`
`justice
`
`are best
`
`served
`
`by
`
`It'I'SIIN5CrttiI'INII()I'Ittt'I'IS
`ROBI
`
`VI:Itattta11120I I
`
`

`

`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`CLERK
`FILED:
`11/15/2017
`COUNTY
`KINGS
`29
`02:
`P1
`50aSe
`1:10-CV-08442-LTS
`10/28/11
`Filed
`56
`Document
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`518372/2017
`NO.
`INDEX
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`EÛÝ D
`11/15/2017
`YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`Pag
`
`having
`
`the D.C. Court
`
`decide
`
`Plaintiff
`
`s current
`
`claims.
`
`Both
`
`this action
`
`and
`
`the D.C. Action
`
`arise
`
`from the same
`
`underlying
`
`issue
`
`- Cartinhour's
`
`alleged
`
`breach
`
`of
`
`the Indemnification
`
`Agreement
`
`by threatening
`
`to sue Robertson
`
`and pursuing
`
`claims
`
`in the subsequent
`
`litigation
`
`meaning
`
`that
`
`the D.C. Court
`
`is uniquely
`
`familiar
`
`with
`
`the facts
`
`and legal
`
`theories
`
`asserted
`
`-
`
`by
`
`both Plaintiff
`
`and Defendants.
`
`Additionally,
`
`in the time
`
`since Defendants
`
`initially
`
`filed
`
`their
`
`motions
`
`to dismiss
`
`a verdict
`
`was entered
`
`for
`
`in this Court,
`
`a jury
`
`reached
`
`Defendant
`
`Cartinhour
`
`in the related
`
`D.C.
`
`Action.
`
`Because
`
`and judgment
`
`Defendants'
`
`motions
`
`to dismiss
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`Complaint
`
`were
`
`substantially
`
`briefed
`
`prior
`
`to that verdict,
`
`Defendants
`
`raised
`
`the issue
`
`of
`
`res judicata
`
`before
`
`this Court
`
`only
`
`in their Reply Memoranda,
`
`to which
`
`Plaintiff
`
`has,
`
`to date,
`
`not
`
`responded.
`
`The D.C. Court,
`
`having
`
`entered
`
`the judgment
`
`in the underlying
`
`D.C.
`
`Action
`
`and
`
`presided
`
`over
`
`that
`
`trial
`
`is in the best position
`
`to review
`
`any
`
`further
`
`and
`
`jury
`
`briefing
`
`make
`
`res judicata
`
`determinations.
`
`Finally,
`
`while
`
`courts
`
`generally
`
`defer
`
`to a plaintiff's
`
`choice
`
`of
`
`forum,
`
`a plaintiff's
`
`choice
`
`of
`
`forum will
`
`be given
`
`less deference
`
`"where
`
`the connection
`
`between
`
`the case and the
`
`chosen
`
`forum
`
`is
`
`minimal,"
`minimal,"
`
`or where
`
`plaintiff's
`
`choice
`
`of
`
`forum is motivated
`
`primarily
`
`by tactical
`
`considerations.
`
`See, e.g., Chiste
`
`v. Hotels.com
`
`LP.,
`
`756 F. Supp.
`
`2d 382,
`
`401
`
`($.D.N.Y.
`
`2010);
`
`Terra Securities
`
`ASA Konkursbo
`
`v. Citigroup,
`
`688 F. Supp.
`
`2d 303,
`
`315 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`2010).
`
`Here,
`
`been
`
`Robertson's
`
`decision
`
`to file
`
`suit
`
`in the Southern
`
`District
`
`of New York
`
`appears
`
`to have
`
`principally
`
`a tactical
`
`maneuver
`
`to avoid
`
`the jurisdiction
`
`of
`
`the D.C. Court,
`
`and so should
`
`be
`
`accorded
`
`little
`
`deference.
`
`For
`
`the above
`
`stated
`
`reasons,
`
`the
`
`Defendants'
`
`motion
`
`to transfer
`
`this
`
`action
`
`to the
`
`United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`is granted.
`
`The
`
`Defendants'
`
`motions
`
`to
`
`dismiss
`
`the Complaint
`
`are terminated
`
`without
`
`prejudice
`
`to renewal
`
`in that Court.
`
`
`
`Iui'I>RVIIL'R1SONV.CRIII'INIIIIIIR
`
`VL'RSII)Nl022S/II
`
`

`

`CLERK
`. COUNTY
`FILED:
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`: 29
`11/15/2017
`KINGS
`02
`Pli
`-cv-
`56
`5faSe
`1:10-cv-08442-LTS
`Document
`Filed
`10/28/11
`-L
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`INDEX
`
`518372/2017
`NO.
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`Paggg@fgtl-
`11/15/2017
`YSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`Motion
`
`for a Stay,
`
`and for Alternative
`
`S_ervice
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Robertson's
`
`motion
`
`for a stay
`
`is denied.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`asserts
`
`that a stay
`
`is
`
`warranted
`
`in this proceeding
`
`because
`
`he has moved
`
`in the bankruptcy
`
`court
`
`for a determination
`
`that
`
`the judgment
`
`of
`
`the U.S. District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia
`
`("D.C.
`
`Judgment"
`Judgment")
`
`is
`
`void
`
`ab initio,
`
`as obtained
`
`in violation
`
`of an automatic
`
`bankruptcy
`
`stay.
`
`Similarly,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`also
`
`asserts
`
`that
`
`an appeal
`
`of
`
`the D.C.
`
`Judgment
`
`before
`
`the U.S. Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`for
`
`the
`
`is pending
`
`District
`
`of Columbia,
`
`such
`
`that
`
`it would
`
`be a waste
`
`ofjudicial
`
`resources
`
`for
`
`this
`
`court
`
`to proceed
`
`in the present
`
`action
`
`until
`
`the appeal
`
`is resolved.
`
`Neither
`
`argument
`
`is availing.
`
`First,
`
`on June
`
`15,
`
`2011, Bankruptcy
`
`Judge
`
`Teel
`
`decisively
`
`rejected
`
`as
`
`"frivolous"
`
`the argument
`
`that
`
`the D.C.
`
`Judgment
`
`was
`
`void
`
`al
`
`initio,
`
`noting
`
`that
`
`"the
`
`automatic
`
`stay did not bar
`
`the actions
`
`[Defendants]
`
`took
`
`after
`
`the commencement
`
`of
`
`this bankruptcy
`
`case, and,
`
`in any event, Cartinhour
`
`obtained
`
`claims."
`
`relief
`
`from the automatic
`
`stay
`
`to pursue
`
`his
`
`Memorandum
`
`Decision
`
`re Ray Connolly's
`
`Motion
`
`for Order
`
`of Civil
`
`Contempt
`
`and for Sanctions
`
`for Violating
`
`Bankruptcy
`
`Stay,
`
`filed
`
`as
`
`docket
`
`entry
`
`no.
`
`164 in In re W.A.R.
`
`LLP, Chap.
`
`11 Case No.
`
`I 1-00044
`
`(Bankr.
`
`D. D.C.
`
`June
`
`15, 201 1). A pending
`
`appeal
`
`is not automatic
`
`grounds
`
`for a stay
`
`of a related
`
`action.
`
`The
`
`factors
`
`that courts
`
`consider
`
`in determining
`
`whether
`
`to stay
`
`their
`
`own
`
`orders
`
`pending
`
`appeal
`
`are
`
`instructive
`
`in this
`
`connection.
`
`Those
`
`factors
`
`are:
`
`a
`
`"(1) whether
`
`the stay
`
`applicant
`
`has made
`
`strong
`
`showing
`
`that he is likely
`
`to succeed
`
`on the merits;
`
`(2) whether
`
`the applicant
`
`will
`
`be
`
`irreparably
`
`injured
`
`absent
`
`a stay;
`
`(3) whether
`
`issuance
`
`of
`
`the stay will
`
`substantially
`
`injure
`
`the
`
`other
`
`parties
`
`interested
`
`in the proceeding;
`
`and (4) where
`
`the public
`
`interest
`
`lies."
`
`In re World
`
`Trade Center
`
`Disaster
`
`Site
`
`Litigation,
`
`503 F.3d
`
`167, 170 (2d Cir.
`
`2007)
`
`(internal
`
`quotations
`
`omitted).
`
`None
`
`of
`
`these
`
`factors
`
`favors
`
`a stay
`
`of
`
`the instant motion.
`
`lrOlll'.IiTSOiiV.('.Wl<'I'1N110lik'ii'I'I)
`
`I l(lll1.'
`X
`
`I<)~4I I
`
`I
`
`

`

`: 29
`11/15/2017
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`: KINGS
`FILED
`P
`FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 01/03/2018 02:17 PM
`02
`5 aSel:10-CV-08442-LTS
`DoCument
`Filed
`10/28/11
`56
`NYSCEF
`DOC. NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 106
`
`501
`INDEX NO. 518372/2017
`11/15/2017
`gb11ŸfSCEF:
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/03/2018
`
`Pagtal
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For
`
`the foregoing
`
`reasons„Defendants'Defendants'
`
`
`reasons,
`
`motions
`
`to dismiss
`
`the Complaint
`
`or,
`
`in the
`
`alternative,
`
`to transfer
`
`the action
`
`to the United
`
`States District
`
`Court
`
`for
`
`the District
`
`of Columbia,
`
`are granted
`
`insofar
`
`as they
`
`seek transfer,
`
`and are terminated
`
`without
`
`prejudice
`
`in all other
`
`respects.
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`motion
`
`for a stay is denied,
`
`and his request
`
`for approval
`
`of alternative
`
`service
`
`on
`
`Defendant
`
`Milicevic
`
`is denied
`
`without
`
`prejudice.
`
`This Memorandum
`
`Order
`
`resolves
`
`docket
`
`entry
`
`nos. 20, 24, and 38.
`
`The Clerk
`
`of
`
`Court
`
`is respectfully
`
`requested
`
`promptly
`
`to effectuate
`
`the transfer
`
`of
`
`this
`
`case and to close
`
`the
`
`matter
`
`in this Court.
`
`New York
`Dated: New York,
`28, 2011
`October
`
`LA
`United
`
`FAYLOR
`States District
`
`SWAIN
`Judge
`
`Ico!!r!!Tsosv.c,v«oNitro!,;r«wvo
`
`Vt."RSIO'8loi2!!i! I
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket