Integrated Communications & Technologies, Inc. et al v. Hewlett-Packard Financial Services Company et al

Filing 115

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS entered denying 109 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 110 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 111 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Montes, Mariliz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
ALEXANDER STYLLER, INTEGRATED
)
COMMUNICATIONS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC. )
JADE CHENG, JASON YUYI, CATHY YU,
)
CAROLINE MARAFAO CHENG, PUSHUN
)
CHENG, CHANGZHEN NI, JUNGANG YU,
)
MEIXIANG CHENG, FANGSHOU YU, and
)
CHANGUA NI,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
Case No. 16-cv-10386-LTS
)
HEWLETT-PACKARD FINANCIAL
)
SERVICES COMPANY, HEWLETT-PACKARD )
FINANCIAL SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE
)
LIMITED, HP, INC., HEWLETT PACKARD
)
ENTERPRISE COMPANY, and DAVID GILL,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DOCS. 109, 110, and 111)
October 11, 2017
SOROKIN, D.J.
On September 5, 2017 Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“HPE”)
answered Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint and asserted a Counterclaim for
indemnification against ICT and a second Counterclaim against ICT, Alexander Styller, and the
Individual Plaintiffs/Defendants (Jade Cheng, Jason Yuyi, and Cathy Yu) for contribution. Doc.
106 at 52-53. On September 8, 2017 Defendants Hewlett-Packard Financial Services Company
(“HPFS”) and Hewlett-Packard Financial Services (India) (“HPFS (India)”) separately answered
the Second Amended Complaint and asserted parallel Counterclaims for indemnification against
ICT and for contribution against ICT, Styller, and the Individual Plaintiff/Defendants. Doc. 107
1

at 51-52; Doc. 108 at 60-62. HPFS (India) asserted an additional Counterclaim for breach of
contract against ICT. Id. at 61.
On September 22, 2017 all Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the Counterclaims by HPE, HPFS,
and HPFS (India). Docs. 109, 110, and 111. The Plaintiffs supported these three motions with
one combined memorandum. Doc. 112. The Defendants opposed. Doc. 114.
First, as to Plaintiffs Caroline Marafao Cheng, Pushun Cheng, Changzhen Ni, Junfang
Yu, Meixiang Cheng, Fangshou Yu, and Changhua Ni, the Motions to Dismiss are DENIED AS
MOOT for the simple and obvious reason, ignored by these Plaintiffs, that no party has asserted
a counterclaim against them. Second, the Motions to Dismiss by ICT, Styller, and the Individual
Plaintiffs/Defendants are DENIED. The Motions disregard the applicable standard of review
and assume that the factual allegations set forth in the Second Amended Complaint are
incontestably established as a matter of law, among other reasons. See In re Loestrin 24 Fe
Antitrust Litigation, 814 F.3d 538, 549 (1st Cir. 2016) (In evaluating a motion to dismiss claims
in a complaint, a court “accept[s] as true all well-pled facts alleged in the complaint and draw[s]
all reasonable inferences in [the pleader’s] favor.”) (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs may
renew their arguments in a motion for summary judgment filed at, but not before, the time the
Court establishes for the filing of summary judgment motions in this case.
Accordingly, the Motions to Dismiss (Docs. 109, 110, and 111) are DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

2