2010-1 SFG Venture LLC v. EP Milwaukee LLC et al
ORDER that Venture has until 5:00 p.m. on 09/29/2011, to file a statement indicating whether or not the terms of the voluntary dismissal [see order] are acceptable to it; If Venture has not withdrawn its motion by that date, the following orders [see order for details] become effective on 09/30/2011 and the action will be dismissed. Signed by Judge Rudolph T Randa on 09/22/2011. (cc: all counsel)(Koll, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
2010-1 SFG VENTURE LLC;
Case No. 10-C-1079
EP MILWAUKEE, LLC;
DOC MILWAUKEE II, LLC;
SJ PROPERTIES SUITES, BUYCO, EHF;
JOHN W. ECONOMOU; and,
STEVE J . ECONOMOU;
DECISION AND ORDER
NATURE OF THE CASE
On April 7, 2010, Specialty Finance Group (“SFG”) filed this diversity action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia seeking to collect over
13 million dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, owed on a promissory note (the “Note”).
SFG issued the Note to non-party DOC Milwaukee LP (the “Partnership”) to finance a
commercial real estate project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (the “Project”). On September 30,
2010, the current Plaintiff, 2010-1 SFG Venture (“Venture”), was substituted for SFG.
Thereafter, on November 30, 2010, United States District Judge Timothy C.
Batten, issued an order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), transferring the action to this District.
The matter was directly assigned to this Court because of related actions pending before it.
Defendant SJ Properties Suites, BuyCo, ehf (“BuyCo”) appeared in this District
as did Defendants, EP Milwaukee LLC (“EP”), John W. Economou and Steve J. Economou
(the “Economou Brothers”), (collectively “the Economou Defendants”). However, by a
January 13, 2011, Decision and Order, the Court granted a motion to withdraw filed by the
Economou Defendants’ counsel, allowing the Economou Defendants an opportunity to obtain
new counsel to represent them. However, no filing on behalf of any of the Economou
Defendants has been made since the issuance of that Decision and Order.
A total of nine motions filed by Venture or BuyCo are currently pending in this
action. Those motions include Venture’s motion, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the action without prejudice. As will be explained, the
Court intends to grant that motion dismissing the action without prejudice and with an award
of costs to BuyCo. The Decision will render the eight remaining motions moot.
The focus of Venture’s request for dismissal begins with this Court’s December
22, 2010, dismissal of a related federal action, also filed by SFG, that sought to foreclose on
the mortgage encumbering real estate located at 1150 North Water Street, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin – the site of the Project. See Specialty Finance Group LLC v. DOC Milwaukee
Unless otherwise stated the background facts are based on the information contained on the docket in this
case, the Declaration of Eric G. W eidig (“W eidig”) in support of Venture’s motion to voluntarily dismiss filed on
February 22, 2011, and the Second W eidig Declaration in support of Venture’s motion to voluntarily dismiss without
prejudice (“W eidig Decl. II”) filed on April 1, 2011.
LP et. al, No. 10-C-315, 2010 WL 5419105, at *1 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 22, 2010) (the “federal
On December 20, 2010, after the transfer of this action to this District, BuyCo
issued its first set of interrogatories, requests to admit, and requests for production (the “first
written discovery requests”) to Venture in this action. (Buyco’s Expedited Non-Dispositive
Mot. Compel Disc. 1.) As that process was ongoing, on January 28, 2011,2 several alleged
construction lien holders, who had been defendants in the federal foreclosure action, filed an
action in Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin to foreclose on their construction
liens related to the Project, Uihlein Electric Company, Inc. et al. v. DOC Milwaukee LP et al,
Case No. 11-CV-1052 (the “1052 state lien foreclosure action”). Buyco and Venture are
included as defendants in the 1052 state lien foreclosure action.
This Court’s January 13, 2011, Decision and Order, set a Rule 16 scheduling
conference for April 5, 2011. On February 4, 2011, Venture served its responses and
objections to BuyCo’s first written discovery requests in this action. (Id.)
On February 11, 2011, Venture filed an answer, affirmative defenses, a
counterclaim, cross-claim and a third-party complaint in the 1052 state lien foreclosure action.
By its pleadings in the 1052 state lien foreclosure action, Venture seeks to foreclose its
mortgage related to the Project and the rights of all other parties that have, or claim an interest,
in the property, including any claims of the Defendants in the instant action. Venture also
The Court takes judicial notice of the filing date for the 1052 state construction lien foreclosure action from
the public record available at http://wcca.wicourts.gov (last visited Sept. 19, 2011).
seeks a judgment on the Note. EP, as well as DOC Milwaukee II, LLC and BuyCo are (or
were) partners in that Partnership.
On February 22, 2011, Venture filed its Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss this
action. Prior to filing the dismissal motion, Venture advised BuyCo that it intended to file the
On February 22, 2011, after Venture filed its motion to dismiss, BuyCo filed an
expedited non-dispositive motion to compel discovery. On February 24, 2011, BuyCo also
filed an expedited non-dispositive motion to compel Rule 26 disclosures.
On March 15, 2011, BuyCo filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing
On March 15, 2011, BuyCo filed its response to Venture’s motion to dismiss,
contending that it will be “severely prejudiced” if Venture’s dismissal motion is granted.
BuyCo also contends that if Venture’s motion is granted, the dismissal should be with
prejudice, and with an award of costs and attorney’s fees. BuyCo claims it has expended over
$200,000 in fees and expenses defending this action which has included: (1) preparing
discovery requests to SFG and Venture, reviewing Venture’s document production, and
preparing a motion to compel; (2) interviewing fact witnesses in Georgia and New Jersey, as
well as witnesses in Iceland where BuyCo is located; (3) collecting documents in Iceland for
Rule 26 disclosures; and (4) conducting the discovery deposition in Georgia of the SFG loan
officer that handled the loan at issue in this case. (Halloin Aff. Supp. BuyCo’s Opp’n Venture
Dismiss filed on Mar. 15, 2011 (“Halloin Aff.”) ¶ 3. )
BuyCo states that only two personal depositions, Jeff Citrin (“Citrin”) of Venture
and Dilip Petigara (“Petigara”) of SFG, and two Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designation
depositions of Venture and SFG remain to be conducted for the initial discovery plan.
(Halloin Aff. ¶ 4.) BuyCo states that such discovery can likely be completed in two or three
BuyCo also avers that “upon information and belief,” based on discovery
obtained in this case, the documents that are relevant to this action have allegedly been seized
by the FDIC, and the witnesses are former employees of a bankrupt entity – SFG. (Id. at ¶ 5.)
As of the date of the Halloin affidavit, SFG had been out of business for two years and its
witnesses have scattered. (Id.) BuyCo believes that with the passage of time it will become
more difficult to pursue testimony from SFG’s witnesses. (Id.) Venture has informed BuyCo
that it cannot answer discovery requests directed at SFG, even though SFG indicated it was
represented by the same counsel as Venture. (Id.)
On March 25, 2011, Venture’s counsel received copies of three new deposition
notices and related subpoenas issued by BuyCo. BuyCo also noticed a deposition of a former
On March 31, 2011, this Court sent the parties a letter cancelling the Rule 16
scheduling conference in light of the pending motions.
Federal Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(2) permits a plaintiff to request voluntary
dismissal, after issue has been joined by the defendants, by order of the court on terms that the
court considers proper. Dismissal of a plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), is within the sound discretion of the district court. Wojtas v. Capital
Guardian Trust Co.,477 F.3d 924, 927 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Outboard Marine
Corp., 789 F.2d 497, 502 (7th Cir. 1986). The plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that
voluntary dismissal is warranted. Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 23 F.3d 174, 178 (7th Cir.
However, it is an abuse of discretion for the district court to permit the voluntary
dismissal of an action where the defendant would suffer “plain legal prejudice” as a result.
Id. (citing Outboard Marine Corp., 789 F.2d at 502; Kovalic v. DEC Int’l, Inc., 855 F.2d 471,
474 (7th Cir. 1988)). In deciding whether a defendant has shown “plain legal prejudice” the
court of appeals for this circuit has identified several factors. See Kunz v. DeFelice, 538 F.3d
667, 677 (7th Cir. 2008). The factors include: “‘the defendant’s effort and expense of
preparation for trial, excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in
prosecuting the action, insufficient explanation for the need to take a dismissal, and the fact
that a motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendant.’” Id. (quoting Pace v.
S. Express Co., 409 F.2d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1969)). These factors are simply a guide; the
enumeration of factors to be considered is not equivalent to a mandate that all the factors be
resolved in favor of the moving party before dismissal is appropriate. Tyco Labs., Inc. v.
Koppers Co., 627 F.2d 54, 56 (7th Cir. 1971).
Rule 41(a)(2) also grants a district court broad discretion to impose conditions
on a voluntary dismissal of a claim. Mother & Father v. Cassidy, 338 F.3d 704, 709 (7th Cir.
2003) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Chavez v. Ill. State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 654-55 (7th
Cir. 2001); Marlow v. Winston & Strawn, 19 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 1994); 9 Charles A.
Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2366, at 302-03 (2d ed. 1995)).
For example, the Court may require the dismissal be with prejudice or condition the dismissal
on the plaintiff’s payments of costs and attorney’s fees. See Cauley v. Wilson, 754 F.2d 769,
771 (7th Cir. 1985). In the case of a dismissal without prejudice, however, the defendant may
have to defend again at a later time and incur duplicative legal expenses. Id. Thus the fee
award should reimburse the defendant for expenses incurred in preparing work product that
will not be useful in subsequent litigation of the same claim. Id. (citing McLaughlin v.
Cheshire, 676 F.2d 855, 857 (D.C. Cir.1982); Victory Beauty Supply, Inc. v. Lamaur, Inc., 98
F.R.D. 306, 309 (N.D. Ill. 1983)).
Dismissals without prejudice are usually granted only if the plaintiff pays
expenses incurred by the defendant in defending the suit up to that point. Babcock v.
McDaniel, 148 F.3d 797, 799 (7th Cir. 1998); Marlow, 19 F.3d at 303. Payment of the
defendant’s costs serves “to offset the possible prejudice defendant may otherwise suffer from
plaintiff dismissing his complaint without prejudice.” Marlow, 19 F.3d at 303. However, if
after considering the Pace factors, a court decides to grant the plaintiff’s motion for voluntary
dismissal, but with prejudice, or with other conditions, the plaintiff must be given a reasonable
opportunity to withdraw his motion if he finds those conditions unacceptable. Id. at 304-05.
Venture’s Reasons for Dismissal
The reasons that Venture asserts for dismissal are extremely well-taken and
focus on events that transpired after this action was transferred to this District – the events in
question were spurred by this Court’s December 2010 dismissal of the federal foreclosure
action and the subsequent filing in late January 2011 of the 1052 state lien foreclosure action
naming Venture as a defendant. Venture subsequently filed cross-claims for foreclosure and
judgment against the Partnership on the Note in the 1052 state lien foreclosure action.
Consequently, as a part of the 1052 state lien foreclosure action, it will be necessary to
determine the amount of the debt due under the Note and other loan documents. See Wis. Stat.
§ 846.01(1). The same issue would also have to be determined with respect to Venture’s
claims in this action. It is also likely that BuyCo will assert the same or similar defenses as
it has in this action. Venture has met its burden of demonstrating this action should be
dismissed on its motion and without prejudice so that the claims may be adjudicated in the
1052 state lien foreclosure action.
BuyCo’s Efforts and Expense
However, the Court may not allow dismissal if BuyCo will suffer “plain legal
prejudice.” Tolle, 23 F.3d at 178. With respect to BuyCo’s efforts and expense, see Pace, 409
F.2d at 334, when Venture filed its motion to dismiss, discovery in this action was in its early
stages. BuyCo first issued written discovery in late December 2010, and Venture had served
its responses and objections to those requests.
Although the action had been pending about ten months, only preliminary
activity had taken place, including the filings associated with Buyco’s motions to dismiss and
for change of venue in Georgia, its request for reconsideration of those motions in Georgia,
and Venture’s motion to strike or, in the alternative, to dismiss BuyCo’s fourth, sixth and
eighth affirmative defenses or, in the alternative, to dismiss BuyCo’s affirmative defenses as
counterclaims in this District. Moreover, as Judge Batten noted in his September 30, 2010,
order denying BuyCo’s motions to dismiss, it was “BuyCo’s failure to play by the rules [that]
resulted in substantial and unnecessary amounts of briefing on threshold issues in the case,
and therefore served to delay these proceedings” for nearly six months. (Judge Batten’s Sept.
30, 2010, Order 11.) About three weeks later, BuyCo filed a motion for reconsideration or for
clarification. That motion was decided on November 30, 2010, at which time the action was
transferred to this Court.
Furthermore, Venture advised BuyCo of its intent to file the Rule 41(a)(2)
dismissal motion, in an effort to allow BuyCo to minimize the expense of this litigation.
However, Venture’s motion precipitated a flurry of filings by BuyCo. BuyCo escalated its
discovery efforts and filed expedited non-dispositive motions to compel discovery and Rule
26 disclosures, while no discovery requests were served in this action by the Economou
Defendants. It is also clear to the Court that BuyCo’s efforts in this litigation will be put to
beneficial use in the 1052 state lien foreclosure litigation.
The Court also takes note of whether Venture engaged in excessive delay and
lack of diligence in prosecuting the action or provided an insufficient explanation for the need
to dismiss this action. See Pace, 409 F.2d at 334. As previously stated, Venture reasonably
requests to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice so that it may pursue all its claims
related to the Project in the 1052 state lien foreclosure action, including its claims against the
Economou Brothers on their personal guaranties of the construction loan.
In seeking dismissal, Venture has not yet determined whether it will continue
to pursue its claims against the general partners of the Partnership. However, if it does,
Venture wants to pursue those claims in the 1052 lien foreclosure action where its other claims
relating to the construction loan and the Project are now pending. Venture has sufficiently
explained its reasons for dismissal of this action that SFG, not it, initiated. Venture’s
explanations also rest on events that occurred after the action was transferred to this District.
There is also no indication that Venture lacked diligence in prosecuting this
action. Although BuyCo asserts that Venture filed suit in the wrong venue and that BuyCo
engaged in several sets of motion practice to have the case moved to the “correct” venue,
those contentions are not supported by the record. The action was filed in a proper venue, and
BuyCo waived any argument to the contrary. (See Judge Batten’s Sept. 30, 2010, Order 11.)
The action was transferred to this Court because BuyCo persuaded Judge Batten that for the
convenience of the parties, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), the action should be transferred
to this District where it could have been brought.
BuyCo contends that Venture has delayed this action by “balking” at discovery.
However, Venture responded to BuyCo’s discovery requests by producing over 4,100 pages
of documents and by objecting to others. (Weidig Decl. II ¶ 2.) Venture did not delay this
action or lack diligence in its prosecution.
Pendency of Summary Judgment Motion
The Court may also consider whether a motion for summary judgment has been
filed by the defendant. See Pace, 409 F.2d at 334. When Venture filed its dismissal motion,
no summary judgment motion was pending. The parties had not completed their Rule 26
conference contemplated by the Court’s January 13, 2011, Decision and Order. (Weidig Decl.
II ¶ 5.) Only hours before BuyCo filed its response to the dismissal motion, BuyCo filed its
motion for summary judgment. And, BuyCo argued in response to the dismissal motion that
the pendency of its (newly filed) summary judgment motion warranted denial of the dismissal
In Pace, the plaintiff filed its motion to dismiss when the defendant had already
briefed its motion for summary judgment. 409 F.2d at 334. The plaintiff had not filed any
brief with respect to the motion for summary judgment. Id. Instead, the plaintiff was
attempting to deprive the defendant of a ruling on the summary judgment motion by its
dismissal tactic. Clearly, the Pace factor relating to summary judgment was meant to address
the instance where a plaintiff files a motion to voluntarily dismiss after and in response to a
motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant. In contrast, BuyCo’s eleventh hour
filing of its summary judgment is an attempt to manufacture plain legal prejudice.
Plain Legal Prejudice
In sum, the Court lacks facts upon which to base a finding that BuyCo would be
subjected to plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal. The action is in its relative
infancy. The Defendants have not asserted any counterclaims. The scheduling conference
that was set for April 5, 2011, was cancelled in light of the pending motions, and no
scheduling order was issued in this action. BuyCo also spent time and effort preparing a
motion for summary judgment even though it knew that more than three weeks earlier Venture
had filed a motion to dismiss the action. Neither the pendency nor the expenses incurred with
respect to those filings provide a basis for denial of Venture’s motion.
Based on the foregoing, the Court grants Venture’s motion to dismiss without
prejudice. It will, however, condition such dismissal by awarding taxable costs to BuyCo.
However, BuyCo is cautioned that “expenses for items that will be useful in another action
or that were incurred unnecessarily” cannot be awarded. See Woodzicka v. Artifex Limited,
25 F.Supp. 2d 930, 934 (E.D. Wis. 1998).
As a final matter, it is settled that a plaintiff has an option not to go forward with
a motion for voluntary dismissal if the conditions specified by the court seem too onerous. 9
Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2366, 547-58 (3d
ed. 2008). Thus, the Court will allow Venture an opportunity to withdraw its motion for
voluntary dismissal in the event it finds the terms and conditions of the Court’s order granting
it to be unacceptable. If Venture has not withdrawn its motion by the stated deadline, then
without further order of the Court, the motion will be granted dismissing the action without
prejudice, judgment will be entered, and costs will be awarded consistent with this opinion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
Venture has until 5:00 p.m. on September 29, 2011, to file a statement
indicating whether or not the terms of the voluntary dismissal are acceptable to it;
If Venture has not withdrawn its motion by that date, the following orders
become effective on September 30, 2011:
Venture’s motion to dismiss voluntarily without prejudice (Docket No. 69) is
GRANTED with costs awarded to BuyCo;
BuyCo may file a bill of costs with the Clerk of Court;
Venture’s motion to strike BuyCo’s fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth affirmative
defenses or, in the alternative, dismissing the affirmative defenses as counterclaims on the
grounds that they fail to set forth a claim upon which relief may be granted (Docket No. 45)
is DENIED AS MOOT;
BuyCo’s Rule 7(h) expedited non-dispositive motion to compel discovery
responses (Docket No. 67) is DENIED AS MOOT;
Venture’s Rule 7(h) expedited non-dispositive motion to stay discovery and for
protective order (Docket No. 70) is DENIED AS MOOT;
Buyco’s Rule 7(h) expedited non-dispositive motion to compel Rule 26
disclosures (Docket No. 71) is DENIED AS MOOT;
BuyCo’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 79) is DENIED AS
Venture’s motion to defer consideration of BuyCo’s motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) and the Colorado River abstention doctrine (Docket
No. 92) is DENIED AS MOOT;
Venture’s Rule 7(h) expedited non-dispositive motion for a protective order
concerning the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice to Venture (Docket No. 96) is DENIED AS
Venture’s Rule 7(h) expedited non-dispositive motion for protective order
concerning the deposition subpoena to non-party Citrin (Docket No. 98) is DENIED AS
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED TO ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 22nd day of September, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge