JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. et al v. RIVADENEYRA et al
Filing
209
OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline C. Arleo on 4/11/2016. (JB, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 13-1085
v.
OPINION
EDUARDO RIVADENEYRA, et al.,
Defendants.
ARLEO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court by way of Defendant Sterling Educational
Media, Inc.’s (“Sterling”) motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 156. Because no allegations support the
claim that Sterling committed fraud, that claim will be dismissed. However, Plaintiffs sufficiently
allege civil conspiracy to commit fraud by Sterling and the other defendants, so that claim will
proceed. The motion is therefore GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
I.
BACKGROUND
In this case, four textbook publishers allege that certain companies and individuals
conspired together to defraud the publishers, fraudulently obtaining textbooks at overseas prices
even though the books would be sold domestically. In the instant motion to dismiss, one of the
defendant entities, Sterling, seeks to dismiss the fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud claims
against it because no allegations indicate Sterling itself ever committed fraud.
Plaintiffs, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., McGraw Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC,
Pearson Education, Inc., and Cengage Learning, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) sued defendants Eduardo
Rivadeneyra (“Rivadeneyra”), Therese Hoddy (“Hoddy”), Mario Figallo Rivadeneyra,
Inversiones Linarias, First Class Club, SAC, Inter-Express Forwarding, Inc., Ameritext, Libro
1
Texto, Phoenix IE, Inc., Academic Express, Sinclair Bargain Books, Quality Books, and Sterling
Educational Media, Inc. (“Sterling”) (collectively, “Defendants”) based upon an alleged fraudulent
scheme to obtain textbooks at discount overseas pricing and sell those books in the United States.
Fourth Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, Dkt. No. 140.
The Fourth Amended Complaint describes the fraudulent scheme.1 Defendants obtained
the textbooks purportedly to sell overseas. Id. ¶ 3. Instead, the books were sent through several
sham companies and then sold in the United States. Id. Sales between the overseas purchasing
companies and domestic companies were performed on paper; books rarely were physically
moved. Id. ¶ 7. Certain defendants created and operated freight forwarders Phoenix IE and InterExpress, which would receive shipments from Plaintiffs for the overseas companies and divert the
shipment to pre-arranged buyers, including Sterling. Id. ¶ 8. Allegedly, the corporate form in the
overseas purchasing companies, U.S. “wash companies,” and freight forwarders was not observed,
with Rivadeneyra and Hoddy acting interchangeably within all those companies and using those
companies’ money interchangeably. Id. ¶ 10. Other allegations concern purchases and sale of
unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs’ textbooks by Hoddy. Id. ¶ 14.
The instant motion concerns only Sterling. Sterling is a domestic seller of textbooks. Id.
¶ 19. Sterling allegedly assisted Defendants in creating overseas purchasing companies to buy the
1
The Fourth Amended Complaint also contains many other counts, including Copyright
Infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (Count 1); Infringement of Federally-Registered
Trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (Count 2); Trademark Counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. §
1114(1)(a) (Count 3); Trafficking in Counterfeit Documentation or Labels under 18 U.S.C. § 2318
(Count 4); Illegal Importation of Goods Bearing Infringing United States Trademarks or Names
under 15 U.S.C. § 1124 and 19 U.S.C. § 1526 (Count 5); Trademark Dilution in Violation of 15
U.S.C. § 1125(c) (Count 6); Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin in
Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Count 7); Negligent Misrepresentation (Count 9); Constructive
Fraud (Count 10); and Common Law Unfair Competition (Count 11). Only the eighth count—
fraud and conspiracy to defraud—is asserted against Sterling, and the current motion to dismiss
concerns only that claim.
2
textbooks. Id. ¶ 4. Sterling performed profit analyses, comparing prices at which Defendants can
buy textbooks to the prices Sterling could sell the textbooks in the United States. Id. ¶ 5. Sterling
then provided detailed purchase lists to Rivadeneyra and Hoddy, describing which textbooks they
should purchase through their overseas companies and at what price. Id. Sterling facilitated those
purchases by selecting which textbooks to purchase and committing to purchase them before they
are acquired. Id. ¶ 12. After Rivadeneyra, Hoddy, and their companies purchased the textbooks,
Sterling bought them from the domestic companies, including Academic Express and Quality
Books, through which the textbooks were funneled to “wash” the books of their foreign origin. Id.
¶ 7. Sterling knew that Rivadenyra and Hoddy represented to Plaintiffs that they intend to sell the
books overseas, and that Sterling could not acquire the books from Plaintiffs for the prices it paid
Rivadeneyra and Hoddy. Id. ¶ 12.
This is not mere speculation. Sterling entered into a formal agreement with Rivadeneyra
and Hoddy in May 2011 which includes many of Plaintiffs’ allegations. Id. ¶ 39. This agreement
details that Sterling was to (1) provide analysis of publisher price lists from which Sterling would
create purchase orders; (2) advance money for textbook purchases; (3) create profit reports by
publisher and country; (4) consult with Rivadeneyra and Hoddy on negotiation strategies for
dealing with Plaintiffs; and (5) provide advice on accounting, banking, and human resources. Id.
Sterling’s president and chief executive officer also personally provided strategic planning
assistance. Id. In exchange, Sterling received a right of first refusal on all book purchases
Rivadeneyra and Hoddy purchased in Peru, Trinidad, Jamaica, and Spain. Id. ¶ 40. The agreement
also required Rivadeneyra and Hoddy to consult with Sterling’s president and chief executive
officer before initiating any new strategy or negotiation tactic and before responding to non-routine
inquiries from any publisher or distributor. Id. Finally, the agreement contemplated that new
3
overseas purchasing companies would be established, for which Sterling would provide legal, tax,
and other due diligence, and from which Sterling would own shares directly or through a holding
company or affiliate. Id.
On February 22, 2013, the first complaint was filed. Dkt. No. 1. It was later amended.
Dkt. No. 17. Some defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint. Dkt. Nos. 24, 36.
This Court dismissed the fraud claim as to Therese and Thomas Hoddy, but permitted the other
claims to proceed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Rivadeneyra, No. 13-1085, 2013 WL 6816369, at
*9 (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2013). The complaint was amended three times thereafter, Dkt. Nos. 66, 90,
139,2 the third time adding as a defendant Sterling, who filed the present motion to dismiss. Dkt.
No. 156.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the pleadings, the court accepts as true
all of the facts in the complaint and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008). Moreover, dismissal is
inappropriate even where “it appears unlikely that the plaintiff can prove those facts or will
ultimately prevail on the merits.” Id.
The facts alleged, however, must be “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.” Id. Accordingly, a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss if it
2
The Fourth Amended Complaint was later filed with additional redactions. Dkt. No. 166. The
new document did not change the substance of the allegations as to Sterling.
4
provides a sufficient factual basis such that it states a facially plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
For allegations sounding in fraud, Rule 9(b) imposes a heightened pleading standard:
namely, “a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake,” but
“[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The circumstances of the fraud must be stated with sufficient particularity to
put a defendant on notice of the “precise misconduct with which [it is] charged.” Lum v. Bank of
Am., 361 F.3d 217, 224 (3d Cir. 2004). “To satisfy this standard, the plaintiff must plead or allege
the date, time and place of the alleged fraud or otherwise inject precision or some measure of
substantiation into a fraud allegation.” Frederico v. Home Depot, 507 F.3d 188, 200 (3d Cir.
2007).
III.
ANALYSIS
A. Fraud
Sterling argues that the Fourth Amended Complaint does not adequately allege fraud as to
Sterling. The Court agrees.
Common laud fraud under New Jersey law requires: (1) a material misrepresentation of a
presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief by the defendant of its falsity; (3) an
intention that the other person rely on it; (4) reasonable reliance thereon by the other person; and
(5) resulting damages. Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors, 148 N.J. 582, 611 (1997). To satisfy
Rule 9(b), a plaintiff must plead facts showing who made a misrepresentation to whom, as well as
the general content of the misrepresentation. Lum, 361 F.3d at 224.
Such facts concerning Sterling are found nowhere in the Fourth Amended Complaint.
Nothing in the complaint alleges that Sterling itself ever made misrepresentations or otherwise
5
committed fraud; all the alleged misrepresentations were made by Rivadeneyra, Hoddy, or their
affiliated companies. Fourth Am. Compl. ¶¶ 42, 45, 102. Without those allegations, the claim of
fraud as to Sterling plainly fails. See In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 618 F.3d 300, 324 (3d
Cir. 2010); DiMare v. Metlife Ins. Co., 369 Fed. App’x 324, 329-30 (3d Cir. 2010). The Court
therefore dismisses the fraud count as to Sterling.
B. Civil Conspiracy to Commit Fraud
The civil conspiracy count is adequately alleged. It may proceed.
Like a fraud claim, a claim for conspiracy to defraud must be pled with specificity under
Rule 9(b). Kronfeld v. First Jersey Nat’l Bank, 638 F. Supp. 1454, 1468 (D.N.J. 1986) (“In actions
alleging a conspiracy to defraud, the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) must be met.”). Under
New Jersey law, a civil conspiracy is “a combination of two or more persons acting in concert to
commit an unlawful act, or to commit a lawful act by unlawful means, a principal element of which
is to inflict a wrong against or injury upon another, and an overt act that results in damage.” Banco
Popular N. Am. v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 177 (2005). The necessary elements of a civil conspiracy
are: (1) a combination of two or more persons; (2) a real agreement or confederation with a
common design; (3) the existence of an unlawful purpose, or a lawful purpose to be achieved by
unlawful means; and (4) special damages. Morganroth & Morganroth v. Norris, McLaughlin &
Marcus, P.C., 331 F.3d 406, 414 (3d Cir. 2003).
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts supporting each element of civil conspiracy.
Sterling, Sterling’s CEO, Rivadeneyra, Hoddy, and the various other named overseas and domestic
companies constitute a combination. These parties entered into an agreement in March 2011,
arranging to purchase books at overseas prices for sale in the United States at greater profits.
Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 39. The complaint alleges unlawful means via Rivadeneyra and Hoddy’s
6
fraudulent statements that they were purchasing the books for sale overseas. Id. ¶ 3. Sterling was
aware that the prices the other defendants paid for these books would not be available absent
overseas pricing. Id. ¶ 12. It is a reasonable inference that it was therefore aware that the other
defendants would have to commit fraud in order to get overseas pricing on the books it agreed to
purchase. Supporting this inference is the fact that other defendants, with Sterling’s help, set up
sham companies overseas, sham freight forwarders, and sham domestic companies. Damages here
are apparent: lost profits in the United States’ textbook market due to unauthorized sales. Id. ¶ 46.
Sterling argues that the count for conspiracy to commit fraud should be dismissed for three
reasons: (1) Sterling did not commit the fraud itself; (2) there was no unlawful purpose or acts;
and (3) the allegations do not adequately state the “who, what, when, where, and how” required to
satisfy the heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b). The Court disagrees.
As to the first argument, it is immaterial whether Sterling itself committed the underlying
wrongful act. Though civil conspiracy requires an underlying unlawful act, see Dist. 1199P Health
& Welfare Plan v. Janssen, L.P., 784 F. Supp. 2d 508, 533 (D.N.J. 2011), it does not require that
each conspirator separately commit that act. “It is enough for liability if [the defendants]
understand the general objectives of the scheme, accept them, and agree, either explicitly or
implicitly, to do their part to further them.” Banco Popular N. Am., 184 N.J. at 177; see also Eli
Lilly & Co., 23 F. Supp. 2d at 496. This makes common sense. If civil conspiracy required each
individual themselves to commit the wrongful act, then it would always be redundant; suing for
the underlying wrongful act would accomplish the same purpose. Sterling’s first argument
therefore fails.
Sterling’s second argument relies upon Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct.
1351 (2013), for the proposition that selling books domestically that were purchased overseas is
7
not unlawful. That is not an accurate characterization of Kirtsaeng, however. Kirtsaeng addressed
whether the first sale doctrine in copyright law, embodied in 17 U.S.C. §§ 109(a), permits resale
of copyrighted works sold overseas. Underlying that issue was whether “lawfully made under this
title” imposed a geographic limitation or a non-geographic one. The Supreme Court held that it
did not impose a geographic limitation, so the first sale doctrine permits resale of legitimately
purchased copyrighted works, even those purchased overseas. Kirtsaeng, 133 S. Ct. at 1371.
However, nothing in Kirtsaeng addressed or permitted fraud (or conspiracy to commit fraud). The
instant motion does not concern whether Sterling committed copyright violations by selling
overseas here—if it did, Kirtsaeng would be highly relevant—but whether Sterling conspired to
defraud Plaintiffs by falsely representing that books were for overseas sale. Agreeing to pursue a
lawful act by unlawful means can render a conspirator liable for civil conspiracy. Banco Popular,
184 N.J. at 177. Here, conspiring to defraud publishers by assisting with the creation and operation
of shell companies and fake freight forwarders, while aware that coconspirators must falsely claim
that the books will be sold overseas in order to acquire the necessary favorable prices, may
constitute an agreement to achieve a lawful act (acquisition of discount books) by unlawful means
(fraud).
The allegations also meet Rule 9(b)’s heightened standard. The who, what, when, where,
and how have all been articulated.
Sterling, Rivadeneyra, Hoddy, and their various other
companies sought to acquire books at discount prices beginning in March 2011 by fraudulently
claiming to sell the textbooks overseas, while actually selling them domestically. Plaintiffs have
adequately alleged civil conspiracy, so this count may proceed.
8
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Sterling’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.
Date: April 11, 2016
/s Madeline Cox Arleo
MADELINE COX ARLEO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
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?