FINK v. BISHOP et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, ORDERED that Pltf's 16 Cross Motion for Leave to File the Second Amended Complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ORDERED that Pltf is directed to appear on 7/21/2014 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 3A to show cause why the instant matter should be permitted to proceed, etc. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/30/2014. (dmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOHN W. FINK,
Plaintiff,
v.
JONATHAN L. BISHOP, KAYDON A.
STANZIONE, JOSEPH M. TROUPE,
GE BETZ, INC., STEVEN W.
DAVIS, PRAXIS TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, PRAXIS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ADT
SECURITY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.

Civil No. 13-3370 (NLH)(KMW)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

HILLMAN, District Judge
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s cross
motion [Doc. No. 16] to amend for leave to file the proposed
second amended complaint [Doc. No. 16-1] in this action; and
The Court noting that only Defendants GE Betz, Inc. and
Steven Davis and ADT Security Services, Inc. filed specific
oppositions [Doc. Nos. 31, 33] to Plaintiff’s cross motion to
amend addressing the contents of the proposed second amended
complaint; and
The Court having undertaken a paragraph by paragraph review
of the proposed second amended complaint and the original
complaint [Doc. No. 1] and the first amended complaint [Doc. No.
4], 1 and noting that paragraphs 1 through 112 of the proposed

1

The first amended complaint was filed to correct
Plaintiff’s jurisdictional pleading deficiencies and did not

second amended complaint are virtually identical to paragraphs 1
through 104 of the original complaint; and
The Court further noting that all of the claims set forth
in the proposed second amended complaint stem from Plaintiff’s
assertion that Defendants participated in the “conversion of
assets from” non-party Advanced Logic Systems, Inc. (“ALSI”), 2 in
which Plaintiff maintains a security interest, subsequently
concealed this conversion of assets, defrauded Plaintiff of his
rights to these assets, and caused Plaintiff to suffer in excess
of $75 million in damages, (see Proposed Second Amended Compl.
[Doc. No. 16-1] ¶ 1); and
The Court noting that Plaintiff is a familiar litigant to
this Court having filed multiple suits in addition to the
present action including 1:09-cv-05078-NLH-KMW, Fink v.
Edgelink, Inc., et al.; 1:12-cv-04125-NLH-KMW, Fink v. Kirchner,
et al.; and 1:12-cv-04479, In Re Advanced Logic Systems, Inc., a
bankruptcy appeal; and
The Court observing that in both the Edgelink matter and
the ALSI bankruptcy appeal, Fink’s primary contention was that
valuable technology and assets of ALSI were fraudulently

significantly alter any substantive allegations set forth in the
original complaint.
2
Advanced Logic Systems, Inc. is now a defunct corporation.

transferred out of that company and converted to the detriment
of Plaintiff’s security interest in those assets; and
The Court having previously determined in both the Edgelink
matter and the ALSI bankruptcy appeal that Fink provided no
evidence that these ALSI assets he maintained a security
interest in were fraudulently transferred or converted, and the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit having affirmed this
Court’s rulings in both the Edgelink matter and the ALSI
bankruptcy appeal by Opinion dated January 21, 2014; and
The Court finding that in light of Plaintiff’s
representation that the claims in the present matter primarily
arise out of his continuing belief that ALSI assets were
fraudulently transferred and converted by various individuals
and business entities – a belief which this Court has repeatedly
found lacks sufficient evidence, it is necessary to conduct a
show cause hearing in this matter requiring Plaintiff to
demonstrate how the claims asserted in any iteration of the
complaint in this action: (1) are not otherwise barred by issue
preclusion, claim preclusion, or New Jersey’s entire controversy
doctrine; and (2) are not in violation of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11(b)(1) and 11(b)(3); 3 and

3

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(3) the

The Court further finding that while leave to amend should
be freely given when justice so requires pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 15, leave cannot be granted until these
issues are resolved.
Accordingly,
IT IS on this

30th

day of

June

, 2014

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s cross motion to amend [Doc. No.
16] shall be, and hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is
further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is directed to appear before this
Court at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, July 21, 2014 in Courtroom 3A of
the Mitchell H. Cohen United States Courthouse, 400 Cooper
Street, Camden, New Jersey, 08102 and show cause why the instant
matter should be permitted to proceed as set forth more fully

Court may, on its own initiative “order ... [a] party to show
cause why conduct specifically described in the order has not
violated Rule 11(b).” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(3). Rule 11(b)
provides that “[b]y presenting to the court a pleading, written
motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting,
or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party
certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
under the circumstances: (1) it is not being presented for any
improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation; ... [and] (3) the
factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically
so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a
reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 11(b)(1), (b)(3).

above; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendants are required to attend the Show
Cause Hearing on July 21, 2014 and should similarly be prepared
to address these issues before the Court.

At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.