Chowdhury et al v. Seaver
DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR - ORDER Denying Paul Hansmeier's request to strike (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on 11/14/2017. (JMK) Modified text on 11/14/2017 (MKG).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
BKY No. 16-4124
In re: PAUL HANSMEIER
BOOTH SWEET, LLP,
Civil No. 17-723 (JRT)
RANDALL L. SEAVER, Trustee of the
Bankruptcy Estate of Paul Hansmeier
On November 8, 2017, the Court issued its order reversing and remanding the
decision of the Bankruptcy Court. (Mem. Op. and Order, Nov. 8, 2017, Docket No. 18.)
While describing the facts in the background section, the Court mentioned an opinion
from the United States District Court for the Central District of California:
While AF Holdings’ action against Chowdhury was pending,
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California concluded that AF Holdings and Prenda Law were
the alter egos of Hansmeier and his partners . . . . See
Ingenuity 13 LLC v. Doe, No. 2:12-cv-8333-ODW(JCx),
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64564, at *6-9 (C.D. Cal. May 6,
(Id. at 2.) Debtor Paul Hansmeier objects to this sentence and asks that the Court strike it
from the order because “[t]here is no such finding in that order.”
The Court disagrees that modification of its previous order is necessary. First, the
sentence is only relevant to explaining the factual background and bears no relevance to
the Court’s decision. The Court did not make a legal conclusion that AF Holdings and
Prenda Law are the alter egos of Hansmeier for liability purposes. Second, the Ingenuity
13 opinion substantially supports the Court’s summary.
The court in Ingenuity 13
adopted an organizational chart showing that Hansmeier and his partners—through AF
Holdings, Prenda Law, and other entities—served as both “counsel” and “client” in
“vexatious” lawsuits designed to “maximize settlement profits.” See 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 64564 at *3-5. The court also found that Hansmeier and his partners “created
these entities to shield the Principals from potential liability and to give an appearance of
legitimacy.” Id. at *2. Finally, other Courts have summarized the findings in Ingenuity
13 using the phrase “alter ego.” See AF Holdings LLC v. Navasca, No. C-12-2396 EMC,
2013 WL 5701104 at *9, *15 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (stating in a report and recommendation
that “[i]ssue preclusion bars AF, Steele and Hansmeier from re-litigating the findings of
fact Judge Wright made in Ingenuity 13 regarding their alter ego relationship.”) The
Court therefore will deny Hansmeier’s request.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the Court DENIES Paul Hansmeier’s request to strike.
DATED: November 14, 2017
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
____s/John R. Tunheim ____
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Court
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?