Century Metal Recycling Private Limited v. Metal Worldwide, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James K. Bredar on 9/10/1. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CENTURY METAL RECYCLING
CIVIL NO. JKB-12-2650
METAL WORLDWIDE, INC., et al.
The complaint in this case was filed in the District of Connecticut on July 5, 2011, by
Century Metal Recycling Private Limited (“Century Metal”) against Metal Worldwide, Inc.
(“MWI”), Sachin Chhabra (“Chhabra”), R.K. Enterprises USA, Inc. (“RKE”), Worldwide Metal
LLC (“Worldwide”), and Tarun Chhabra (“T. Chhabra”). (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Century Metal
subsequently filed an amended complaint that added another count against RKE. (ECF No. 56.)
All Defendants filed motions to dismiss on various grounds including lack of personal
jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 57–63, 66.) On August 2, 2012, the motions to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction were granted but, rather than dismissing the case, the court transferred it to
the District of Maryland; all Defendants except RKE did not object to this Court’s jurisdiction,
and as to RKE, the transferring court determined that RKE would be subject to personal
jurisdiction in Maryland based on its lease of office space here. (Ruling 22-23, ECF No. 96.)
Following transfer to this Court, the case was stayed for several months pending a bankruptcy
filing by RKE and settlement negotiations. The bankruptcy proceeding has been concluded and
the parties are ready to have this Court address the remainder of their motions to dismiss. No
Defendant has renewed any argument pertaining to personal jurisdiction, and the Court finds that
all Defendants have conceded the issue.
Also pending before the Court is Century Metal’s motion for joinder and for leave to
amend the amended complaint to add a new defendant and new counts against all defendants that
include statutory theft under Connecticut law, unjust enrichment, conversion, and civil
conspiracy. (ECF No. 118.) All Defendants except RKE (which, apparently at the time, had
already filed its bankruptcy petition) filed a response to Century Metal’s motion requesting that
the Court rule first on the pending motions to dismiss before they are required to respond in
substance to Century Metal’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF
No. 123.) The Court will grant Defendants’ request and will set a briefing schedule in the order
accompanying this memorandum opinion.
The issues remaining in the Defendants’ motions to dismiss have been fully briefed (ECF
Nos. 70, 72, 73, 76, 84, 86, 88, 90), and no hearing is necessary, Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.
2011). MWI’s and Chhabra’s motion will be granted in part and denied in part, Worldwide’s
motion will be denied, T. Chhabra’s motion will be granted, and RKE’s motion will be granted
in part and denied in part.
II. Standard of Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim
A complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Facial plausibility exists “when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. An inference of a mere
possibility of misconduct is not sufficient to support a plausible claim. Id. at 679. As the
Twombly opinion stated, “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” 550 U.S. at 555. “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ . . . Nor does a complaint
suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557). Although when considering a motion to
dismiss a court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, this principle does not
apply to legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Additionally, a fraud claim must be pleaded with particularity. Under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 9(b), a party alleging fraud “must state with particularity the circumstances
constituting fraud . . . .” However, “[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a
person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Id. The “circumstances constituting fraud” include
time, place, and contents of the fraudulent representation, the identity of the person making the
misrepresentation, and what that person obtained. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River
Co., 176 F.3d 776, 783-84 (4th Cir. 1999).
III. Allegations of the Complaint
Century Metal is a foreign corporation registered in India with factories in India and its
principal United States offices in Connecticut. (Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 56.) It alleges that it
entered into a series of contracts with MWI, which is a Florida corporation with its principal
place of business in Florida. In these contracts, MWI was to provide and Century Metal was to
purchase containers of Zorba, an aluminum scrap metal. (Id. ¶ 11.)1 In furtherance of these
contracts, Century Metal made advanced payments of $2,901,159 to MWI. (Id. ¶ 14.) In return,
The Court notes that the amended complaint indicates copies of these contracts are attached to the
amended complaint as Exhibit A. (Am. Compl. ¶ 11.) The amended complaint, in actuality, does not have any
exhibits accessible by the Court. However, the Court has found in the docket an additional filing with substitute
exhibits that seem to correspond to the amended complaint’s exhibits. (ECF No. 64.)
MWI provided containers of Zorba totaling $2,136,881, but did not provide any Zorba for the
remaining $764,278 balance. (Id. ¶ 15.) MWI refunded $137,800 to Century Metal, leaving an
outstanding balance of $626,478 retained by MWI but for which Century Metal did not receive
the contracted Zorba. (Id.) In addition to the outstanding balance due, Century Metal claims it
continues to be damaged because it lost at least $100,000 by way of interest and market price
fluctuation. (Id. ¶ 16.)
On April 4, 2011, Chhabra, president of MWI, delivered to Century Metal a letter with
the subject line, “Balance Due on Metal Worldwide Inc.” (Substitute Ex. B, ECF No. 64.) In the
letter, Chhabra confirmed that $600,000 was the outstanding balance due to Century Metal on
the date of the letter. Further, the letter stated:
We undertake to pay this amount as, $ 250,000 by 15th April, 2011, $ 250,000 by
15th May 2011 and $100,000 by 30th May, 2011. It is further agreed that
[Century Metal] has lost $ 100,000 by way of interest and market price difference
due to non performance of contracts by us. It is agreed that we will further pay
$ 50,000 by 30th June 2011 as compensation to [Century Metal] in full and final
In case we default in any of the payments, then [Century Metal] shall be entitled
to receive full compensation of $ 100,000 + $ 600,000 priciple [sic] + interest @
15% pa compunded [sic] montthly [sic] from 1st April 2011 to the date of
(Id.) Century Metal alleges this letter was signed by Chhabra in the presence of Century Metal’s
representative, Rajiv Kaushal, who was at all relevant times in the complaint located in
Connecticut. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 13, 18.)
On April 8, Connecticut counsel for Century Metal responded with a letter:
Please be advised that my client accepts the terms of your offer, as relayed
in that correspondence [referring to the letter of April 4, 2011], to pay the
outstanding balance due. Notwithstanding, my clients reiterate that such
acceptance does not constitute any waiver, express or implied, of any of its [sic]
rights to collect the full balance due, in addition to interest and costs, in the event
of any default in your obligations or failure to make payments when due, without
further notice. To the extent that any such default occurs, my client will fully
exercise all available legal rights, including with respect to seeking prejudgment
or equitable relief. Naturally, I hope that will not be necessary and we look
forward to you abiding by the payment schedule as agreed.
(Substitute Ex. C.) Century Metal alleges that, despite its repeated demands, MWI and Chhabra
have failed to make a single payment under this payment contract.
Century Metal further alleges that on March 21, 2011, MWI filed for voluntary
dissolution of the corporation, and the petition was granted on April 30, 2011. (Am. Compl.
¶¶ 23, 24.)
Moreover, Chhabra and MWI misrepresented MWI’s financial condition and
concealed its corporate dissolution in their April 2011 dealings with Century Metal and neither
Defendant intended to honor the terms of the payment contract; additionally, Chhabra and MWI
falsely reassured Century Metal that they would perform the payment contract in telephone calls,
text messages, and electronic messages to Century Metal. (Id. ¶¶ 28-30.2) Chhabra and MWI
allegedly followed this course of action to induce Century Metal to enter into the payment
contract and to delay it from pursuing its legal remedies to obtain payment on the outstanding
balance while Chhabra and MWI were dissolving the corporation and diverting funds to other
entities to avoid collection. (Id. ¶¶ 31, 34.3) The entities to whom the corporate assets were
diverted are alleged to be Chhabra; Worldwide, formed by Chhabra in conjunction with the
dissolution of MWI and alleged to be a successor corporation to MWI; and RKE, also alleged to
be a successor to MWI. (Id. ¶¶ 35,4 43,5 47,6 63.7) In addition, Chhabra and RKE are alleged to
have unity of interest with and to be alter egos of MWI. (Id. ¶¶ 40,8 72.9) RKE is alleged to
Misnumbered as ¶¶ 25-27 in Count Two. The Federal Rules require numbered paragraphs in pleadings.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). The Court believes that the only reasonable interpretation of this rule is that each number will
be used once, not multiple times as Plaintiff has done. Before the Court will consider Plaintiff’s motion for leave to
amend its complaint, Plaintiff will be required to rectify this problem.
Misnumbered as ¶¶ 28 and 31 in Count Two.
Misnumbered as ¶ 32 in Count Two.
Misnumbered as ¶ 32 in Count Four.
Misnumbered as ¶ 32 in Count Five.
Misnumbered as ¶ 36 in Count Eight.
Misnumbered as ¶ 36 in Count Three.
have participated in the negotiations between MWI and Century Metal leading up to the payment
contract, to have solicited the same kind of business from Century Metal during early 2011, and
to share the same office address with Worldwide. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 6, 59–63.10)
The amended complaint presents two substantive claims for breach of contract and fraud.
Century Metal has pleaded these two causes of action either directly or indirectly against
Defendants. Indirect liability arises in the counts asserting either liability under a theory of unity
of interest and alter ego or successor liability.
A. Breach of Contract
MWI is the only Defendant in Count One, which alleges breach of contract. Specifically,
Century Metal has pleaded breach of the Zorba container contracts and breach of the payment
contract. (Id. ¶ 23.) MWI has not argued that Count One fails to state a claim of breach of the
Zorba container contracts, and the allegations clearly do state such a breach. Instead, MWI
apparently concedes that point and argues only that the payment contract never came into being,
so it cannot be sued for breaching it. (MWI/Chhabra’s Mot. Dismiss 9, ECF No. 60.)
MWI further asserts that Florida law should be applied to Count One, but has not
convincingly argued that point. Sitting in diversity, this Court applies the law of the forum state,
which is Maryland. Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S 64, 78 (1938). This Court is also bound
in this diversity case to apply Maryland’s rules for choice of law. See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor
Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941); DiFederico v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 796, 807
(4th Cir. 2013).
As to choice of law questions regarding contract issues, Maryland courts
generally follow the lex loci contractus approach and thus hold that while the law
Misnumbered as ¶ 39 in Count Nine.
Misnumbered as ¶¶ 32–36 in Count Eight.
of the forum governs the remedy for breach of contract, the law of the place of
contracting governs questions regarding the nature, validity and construction of a
contract unless such law would violate a strong public policy of Maryland.
Guinness v. Ward, 955 F.2d 875, 893 n.13 (4th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).
The two pieces of paper at issue in Century Metal’s claim of breach of the payment
contract were allegedly signed in Connecticut. Certainly, the last one was signed and placed into
the mail there, and Century Metal alleges this second letter constituted acceptance of the offer,
thereby creating the payment contract. Whether a contract was formed, therefore, is determined
by reference to Connecticut law. MWI argues that Century Metal’s letter of response to MWI’s
letter constituted not an acceptance but a counteroffer that rejected MWI’s offer; thus, without
MWI’s acceptance of Century Metal’s counteroffer, no contract was formed. MWI’s argument
misinterprets the wording of Century Metal’s response, which unequivocally accepted MWI’s
offer and merely reminded MWI that Century had legal remedies under Connecticut law and
intended to use them if MWI defaulted on the payment contract. Had MWI’s offer included
language indicating that its proposed remedy in case of default was exclusive to any other
remedy Century Metal possessed in law, then perhaps MWI’s argument would be more
persuasive. But the Court interprets the two communications as an offer and an acceptance that
created a contract. This interpretation is consistent with Connecticut law defining a counteroffer
as including “[a] reply to an offer which purports to accept it but is conditional on the offeror’s
assent to terms additional to or different from those offered,” Ziotas v. Reardon Law Firm, P.C.,
959 A.2d 1013, 1025 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008), rev’d in part on other grounds, 997 A.2d 453
(Conn. 2010), and “[a]ny qualification of or departure from the terms in which the offer was
made by the offeror,” Cavallo v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 338, 340 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984).
Even if Century Metal’s response is interpreted as a counteroffer, then the complaint’s
allegations allow an inference that the counteroffer was accepted by MWI. The complaint
alleges that MWI and Chhabra, after the April 8 response by Century Metal, “continued to
falsely reassure Century Metal that Defendants would perform the Payment Contract or some
altered version thereof in telephone calls to Century Metal in Connecticut, text messages
delivered to Century Metal in Connecticut and/or electronic written messages delivered to
Century Metal in Connecticut.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 30.11) Construing the complaint’s allegations in
Plaintiff’s favor, to the extent that Century Metal’s response constituted a counteroffer, Century
Metal has plausibly alleged that MWI accepted it by virtue of numerous communications
promising to perform. See John J. Brennan Const. Corp., Inc. v. City of Shelton, 448 A.2d 180,
187 (Conn. 1982) (“It is axiomatic that, regardless of a party’s actual intent, if he conducts
himself so as to lead the other party reasonably to conclude that he is accepting an offer to
contract, acceptance has taken place as a matter of law.”). Thus, Century Metal has adequately
stated a claim for relief in Count One.
The second substantive claim is for fraud in connection with the dissolution of MWI and
the diversion of its assets to other entities while making misrepresentations to Century Metal that
caused it to delay its pursuit of legal remedies against MWI until after the dissolution and
diversion had occurred. Defendants have attacked this claim under Rule 9(b)’s particularity
The Court concludes the amended complaint plausibly alleges that the
misrepresentations, either by commission or omission, were made by MWI and Chhabra to
Century Metal at its offices in Connecticut in the time period of March to April 2011 and that
they effectively bought time for Defendants to dissolve MWI and divert its assets to other
entities in an effort to avoid payment of the outstanding balance to Century Metal.
Misnumbered as ¶ 27 in Count Two.
Consequently, the Court finds that Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement is satisfied. Count Two,
therefore, is viable.
C. Unity of Interest and Alter Ego
Although Chhabra was sued directly in Count Two for fraud, both Chhabra and RKE
have been sued indirectly under the theory of unity of interest and alter ego, i.e., “piercing the
corporate veil,” for the damages sustained by Century Metal (Counts Three and Nine). Whether
this theory is applied to the contract claim or the fraud claim, the Court again applies
Connecticut law inasmuch as Maryland’s choice-of-law rules dictate Connecticut not only as the
place of contracting but also as the place of alleged tortious injury to Century Metal. See Lewis
v. Waletzky, 31 A.3d 123, 129 (Md. 2011) (Maryland adheres to doctrine of lex loci delicti;
“when a Maryland state court is confronted with multistate tort litigation, that court must apply
the law of the place of injury as to all matters of substantive law”).
The Connecticut Supreme Court has said that the legal theory of piercing the corporate
veil is equitable in nature and is determined according to the circumstances confronting the court
in a particular case. Patel v. Flexo Converters U.S.A., Inc., 68 A.3d 1162, 1167 (Conn. 2013).
“The standard requires that the corporation, functionally speaking, have no separate existence
from the alter ego who controls and dominates the corporation’s affairs.” Id. Connecticut courts
have recognized two tests for disregarding a defendant’s corporate structure: the instrumentality
rule and the identity rule. Id. n.7. The instrumentality rule requires, in the absence of evidence
of express agency, proof of three elements:
(1) Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete
domination, not only of finances but of policy and business practice in respect to
the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this transaction had at the
time no separate mind, will or existence of its own; (2) that such control must
have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetrate the
violation of a statutory or other positive legal duty, or a dishonest or unjust act in
contravention of [the] plaintiff's legal rights; and (3) that the aforesaid control and
breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of.
Id. (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The identity rule is stated as follows:
If [the] plaintiff can show that there was such a unity of interest and ownership
that the independence of the corporations had in effect ceased or had never begun,
an adherence to the fiction of separate identity would serve only to defeat justice
and equity by permitting the economic entity to escape liability arising out of an
operation conducted by one corporation for the benefit of the whole enterprise.
Id. (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
As to Chhabra, Century Metal alleges he served as MWI’s principal owner, employee,
and decision-maker, he has dominated MWI for his own personal financial gain and benefit, and
he had exclusive authority and responsibility for MWI’s actions. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 38, 39.12)
These allegations in addition to Chhabra’s filing the dissolution petition and his authorship, as
president of MWI, of the payment contract offer letter are sufficient to allow an inference that
Chhabra has had unity of interest with MWI and that he has been MWI’s alter ego.
With regard to RKE, as earlier noted, RKE participated in the negotiations leading up to
the payment contract, solicited similar business from Century Metal, and has the same office
address as Worldwide, which is alleged to be a successor to MWI as is RKE. These allegations,
although clearly showing that RKE’s business was somewhat intertwined with MWI, are
insufficient to show that RKE has had unity of interest with MWI or that RKE has been MWI’s
alter ego. Consequently, Count Three against Chhabra is viable, but Count Nine against RKE is
D. Successor Liability
The remaining counts are pursued under a theory of successor liability against Worldwide
(Counts Four and Five), Chhabra (Count Six), T. Chhabra (Count Seven), and RKE (Count
Misnumbered as ¶¶ 34 and 35 in Count Three.
Eight). The Court notes initially that Defendants have faulted the amended complaint for
alleging that more than one entity is a successor to MWI, thereby advancing an argument that
inconsistent theories in a pleading are unacceptable. Inconsistent legal theories are permissible
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(d)(3), and Defendants’ argument on this point has no
1. Worldwide Metal LLC
As to Worldwide, the Defendant points out, and the Court agrees, that the successor
liability laws of Connecticut and Maryland are essentially the same as they concern the instant
case. (Worldwide’s Mot. Dismiss Supp. Mem. 3, ECF No. 58-1.) Thus, even though Century
Metal is located in Connecticut and Worldwide is located in Maryland, the standards of the two
states on this theory have no significant differences. In the case of Nissen Corp. v. Miller, the
Maryland Court of Appeals adopted the general rule of nonliability of successor corporations
with its four well-recognized traditional exceptions, but declined to adopt a fifth exception for
“continuity of enterprise.” 594 A.2d 564, 573-74 (Md. 1991). The rule is stated thusly:
“[A] corporation which acquires all or part of the assets of another corporation
does not acquire the liabilities and debts of the predecessor, unless: (1) there is an
express or implied agreement to assume the liabilities; (2) the transaction amounts
to a consolidation or merger; (3) the successor entity is a mere continuation or
reincarnation of the predecessor entity; or (4) the transaction was fraudulent, not
made in good faith, or made without sufficient consideration. Thus, the general
rule is one of successor nonliability, subject to four ‘traditional’ exceptions....”
Id. at 565 (quoting 1 American Law of Products Liability 3d § 7:1, at 10-12 (Travers, rev. ed.
1990); accord 1 L. Frumer & M. Friedman, Products Liability § 2.06 (1989); 15 W. Fletcher,
Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations § 7122, at 231 (rev. perm. ed. 1990)).
Defendants’ other argument that faults Century Metal for alleging certain facts “upon information and
belief” is equally without merit. In the 1993 Advisory Committee Note to Rule 11(b), it is noted that use of the
phrase “upon information and belief” is a permissible way to indicate a factual contention that a plaintiff reasonably
believes is true but for which the plaintiff may need discovery to gather and confirm its evidentiary basis.
Likewise, the rule is stated by the Appellate Court of Connecticut in Chamlink Corp. v.
Merritt Extruder Corp., 899 A.2d 90, 92-93 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006):
“The mere transfer of the assets of one corporation to another corporation or
individual generally does not make the latter liable for the debts or liabilities of
the first corporation except where the purchaser expressly or impliedly agrees to
assume the obligations, the purchaser is merely a continuation of the selling
corporation, [the companies merged] or the transaction is entered into
fraudulently to escape liability.”
(Alteration in original) (quoting 19 C.J.S. 314, Corporations § 657 (1990)). Century Metal
alleges that Worldwide Metal LLC was being formed at the same time Chhabra was dissolving
Metal Worldwide, Inc., that Worldwide engages in the same type of business (selling scrap
metal) as MWI, that Worldwide serves MWI’s customers, that Chhabra continues to act through
Worldwide to conduct business, and that Worldwide maintains the same officers and assets as
MWI. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 43, 44.14) The Court concludes Century Metal has plausibly alleged
either that Worldwide is “a mere continuation or reincarnation of the predecessor entity” or that
the dissolution of MWI and transfer of assets to other entities including Worldwide was a
fraudulent transaction. Either is sufficient as an allegation of successor liability of Worldwide.
Consequently, Counts Four and Five are viable claims.
2. Sachin Chhabra
Because Chhabra is a domiciliary of Maryland, the Court employs the same
choice-of-law analysis as it did with Worldwide Metal and comes out at the same place, that is,
the rule of law is the same in Connecticut and Maryland. The Court also notes that identical
considerations result in the same choice for Defendants T. Chhabra and RKE.
However, application of the doctrine of successor liability to Chhabra is not supported by
the allegations of the amended complaint. Indeed, Century Metal alleges that “Sachin Chhabra
Misnumbered as ¶¶ 32 and 33 in Count Four.
continues to act through Worldwide Metal to conduct business.”
(Am. Compl. ¶ 44.c.15)
Nowhere does Century Metal allege that Chhabra conducts business as a sole proprietor. The
logical inference is that business is conducted by Chhabra through a business entity, not by
Chhabra acting alone. Thus, the Court need not reach the question whether a sole proprietor
could have liability under the successor liability doctrine.16
The factual allegations are
insufficient to support Count Six.
3. Tarun Chhabra
The amended complaint includes no allegations to permit an inference that T. Chhabra
can be considered a successor to MWI. The only allegations Century Metal makes about this
Defendant are that he is an individual domiciled in Columbia, Maryland, and that MWI’s
dissolution and the transfer of its assets were done fraudulently by T. Chhabra “and/or any other
entity.” The Court cannot plausibly infer from this that T. Chhabra had either opportunity or
authority to engage in MWI’s dissolution and subsequent alleged transfer of assets or that he
presently operates a business entity of any kind, let alone one that uses MWI’s assets and carries
on the same business operations. His motion to dismiss will be granted.
4. R.K. Enterprises USA Inc.
Century Metal plausibly alleges that RKE possesses successor liability for damages
flowing from MWI’s breach of contract and from the allegedly fraudulent dissolution of MWI
and transfer of its assets. According to the amended complaint, RKE, by the authority vested in
it by MWI and Chhabra, was involved in negotiations leading up to the payment contract,
continued to solicit the same business from Century Metal, was the transferee of assets from
Misnumbered as ¶ 33.c in Count Four.
But the Court notes that the Chamlink opinion specifically includes an individual in the successor
liability doctrine, and the Court sees no reason to exempt individuals from those potentially liable under this
MWI, and continues to operate virtually the same business operations as did MWI. The Court
concludes that Count Nine remains a viable claim.
After considering the parties’ arguments on the remaining issues in Defendants’ motions
to dismiss, MWI’s and Chhabra’s joint motion will be granted as to Count Six and otherwise
denied, Worldwide’s motion will be denied, T. Chhabra’s motion will be granted and he will be
dismissed from the case, and RKE’s motion will be granted as to Count Nine and otherwise
denied. A separate order will be entered on these rulings and will also set a briefing schedule on
Century Metal’s motion for leave to amend its complaint.
DATED this 10th day of September, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge
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?