Nano Gas Technologies, Inc. v. Roe
Filing
53
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: The Court denies Nano Gas' supplemental motion for the turnover of property. 97 . Signed by the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman on 6/5/2020. Mailed notice. (ym, )
Case: 1:17-cv-01738 Document #: 53 Filed: 06/05/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:548
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
NANO GAS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLIFFTON ROE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case Nos. 17-cv-1738, 17-cv-2241
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On December 8, 2017, the Court entered an order confirming an arbitration award in favor
of Nano Gas Technologies and against Cliffton Roe. Before the Court is Nano Gas’ motion for the
turnover of property after it had issued Roe a citation to discover assets. For the following reasons,
the Court denies Nano Gas’ motion.
Background
Roe invented a nozzle capable of dissolving and dispersing gasses into liquids. Nano Gas
and Roe entered into a collaboration to commercialize the technology – the terms of which were set
forth in a “Collaboration and Non-Compete Agreement” (“Agreement”). The Agreement
contained arbitration clause.
Roe worked in Nano Gas’ Michigan facility alongside Nano Gas employees to develop a
machine utilizing his invention and related intellectual property. The working relationship between
Roe and Nano Gas, however, began to deteriorate after the collaboration was slow to produce the
desired results. Roe then removed the machine and related intellectual property from Nano Gas’
facility and began independently using the machine and collaborating with others.
Subsequently, Roe filed a civil action against Nano Gas in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan. The court held that the parties’ claims were subject to
Case: 1:17-cv-01738 Document #: 53 Filed: 06/05/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:549
arbitration pursuant to the Agreement, and accordingly dismissed the case without prejudice. Roe
then initiated an arbitration proceeding against Nano Gas.
The arbitration was conducted in Chicago. The arbitrator concluded that Roe had assigned
the rights to the machine and related intellectual property to Nano Gas, thus Roe had no right to
remove the machine or related intellectual property from Nano Gas’ facility or share it with others.
Also, the arbitrator found that Roe improperly removed a box of papers prepared by Nano Gas
employee Jeff Hardin containing intellectual property related to the machine, and accordingly
ordered that Roe return the box of “Hardin papers” or pay Nano Gas $150,000 in damages. The
arbitrator also issued a permanent injunction against Roe prohibiting him from directly or indirectly
engaging in any commercial activity relating to the technology without consent from Nano Gas.
After Roe filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, the case was transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois on March 23, 2017 and reassigned to this Court on May 30, 2017, at
which time case numbers 17 C 1738 and 17 C 2241 were designated as related. On November 14,
2017, the Court denied Roe’s motion to vacate the arbitration award. Thereafter, on December 8,
2017, the Court entered a final judgment confirming the arbitration award in the amount of
$650,000. Roe appealed the Court’s order, but later voluntarily dismissed it.
Legal Standard
Rule 69(a)(1), which “governs the enforcement of money judgments in federal court,
provides that the ‘procedure on execution—and in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of
judgment or execution—must accord with the procedure of the state where the court is located.’”
GE Betz, Inc. v. Zee Co., Inc., 718 F.3d 615, 626 (7th Cir. 2013). The Court thus looks to “Illinois law
for the procedural rights and processes accompanying a citation to discover assets.” Id. Under the
Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, the Court may “[c]ompel the judgment debtor to deliver up, to be
applied in satisfaction of the judgment, in whole or in part, money, choses in action, property or
2
Case: 1:17-cv-01738 Document #: 53 Filed: 06/05/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:550
effects in his or her possession or control, so discovered, capable of delivery and to which his or her
title or right of possession is not substantially disputed.” 735 ILCS 5/2–1402(c)(1).
Discussion
In its turnover motion, Nano Gas asserts that at Roe’s deposition concerning his citation to
discover assets, he testified that he is a current shareholder of Nano Gas stock. He testified that he
still has physical possession of the stock certificates. Nano Gas asks the Court to issue an order
directing Roe to turnover these shares. In response to the turnover motion, Roe argues that the
arbitrator’s ruling allows him to pay the amount owed to Nano Gas in the manner he chooses. Roe
maintains that he wants to hold onto his Nano Gas stock and use those financial benefits to pay the
money judgment portion of the arbitration award.
Looking to the language of the arbitrator’s ruling as a whole, after discussing that Roe
contributed to the success of the Nano Gas machine, the arbitrator decide that equity required an
award to Roe for his contributions. The arbitrator articulated: “That award, however, should be in
the form of an offset against the Arbitrator’s award to Nano Gas.” The arbitrator further stated:
The Arbitrator considered awarding Roe some sort of royalty on future profits that
might flow from the Nano Gas machine or other related intellectual property, but
decided against this. It should be noted in this regard that Roe remains a major
shareholder in Nano Gas, and that, as such, he could benefit financially from this in
the future should Nano Gas experience profitability and an increase in value.
In the end, the arbitrator award Nano Gas a total of $650,000. In doing so, the arbitrator
explained the damages setoff as follows:
Roe is ordered to pay damages to Nano Gas in the amount of $1,500,000, with such
payment to be made by (1) first, subtracting from the amount to be paid to Roe by
Nano Gas under this decision ($1,500,000) the amount to be paid to Nano Gas by
Roe under this decision ($1,000,000) and (2) thereafter, the remainder ($500,000) in
such manner as Roe chooses.
Also, as discussed, based on Roe taking the Hardin work-papers, the arbitrator directed Roe to
search for those documents and return them to Nano Gas, or if Roe was unable to find the papers,
3
Case: 1:17-cv-01738 Document #: 53 Filed: 06/05/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:551
pay Nano Gas the sum of $150,000.
Although not a model of clarity, the arbitrator awarded Nano Gas $1,500,000 and Roe
$1,000,000. An offset of these numbers resulted in Roe owing Nano Gas $500,000, along with the
$150,000 for the Hardin papers. After calculating the offset, the arbitrator unequivocally stated that
Roe would pay the remainder of $500,000 “in such a manner as Roe chooses.” Nano Gas’ attempt
to excise this language out of the arbitration ruling is misplaced – to do so would render this
language superfluous. The arbitration decision read as a whole further supports the Court’s
conclusion because the arbitrator discussed that in lieu of royalties, Roe would benefit from his
invention as a shareholder in Nano Gas.
On a final note, as the Court stated on September 3, 2019, the parties’ lawsuit in front of
Judge Pacold, case number 18-cv-6757, does not concern the arbitration award, and thus is not
related to the present motion. Accordingly, the Court will not grant Nano Gas the relief it seeks in
relation to that lawsuit nor the purported “shareholder oppression” lawsuit that has yet to be filed.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Nano Gas’ supplemental motion for the
turnover of property. [97].
SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
Sharon Johnson Coleman
United States District Court Judge
DATED: 6/5/2020
4
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.
Why Is My Information Online?