CEVDET AKSUT VE OGULLARI KOLL.STI v. CAVUSOGLU et al
Filing
75
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 7/14/15. (gh, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CEVDET AKSÜT VE OĞULLARI
KOLL. STI,
Civ. No. 14-3362 (WJM)
Plaintiff,
v.
OPINION
ROBIN A. CAVUSOGLU, HINCKLEY
ALLEN & SNYDER LLP, CNC
WAREHOUSING LLC, MUNEVVER
CAVUSOGLU, GULSUN CAVUSOGLU,
AHMET HAMDI CAVUSOGLU, CELIL
CAVUSOGLU, HUSEYIN T.
CAVUSOGLU, AMERICAN PISTACHIO
COMMODITY CORP. d/b/a SUNRISE
COMMODITIES, GALIP UNSALAN,
ANDREW ROSEN, DAVID COTTAM,
MORDY DICKER, HGC
COMMODITIES CORP., NORTHEAST
IMPORTS INC., CNC TRADING
DISTRIBUTION AND WAREHOUSING
INC., SONA TRADING LTD., LINDEN
PACKAGING CORP., EFE SPECIALTY
MARKET, INC., EFE
INTERNATIONAL, INC., ZEYNO
TRUCKING, INC., APC COMMODITY
CORP., UNSALAN PETROL DIS
TICARET, CELIL ITHALAT
ITHRACAT VE TICARET LTD., STI.,
Defendants.
1
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
The Court has already issued an opinion in this case on a Motion to Dismiss
for failure to state a claim that was filed by Sunrise Commodities Corp. and two of
its principals (the “Sunrise Opinion”). (ECF No. 69). It also issued an opinion on a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim that was filed by Mordy Dicker (ECF
No. 71). The Court writes for those familiar with these two Opinions.
Co-Defendants Munevver Cavusoglu, Celil Cavusoglu, Ahmet Hamdi
Cavusoglu, and Gulsun Cavusoglu (collectively referred to as the “Cavusoglu
Children”) filed this Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Their brief argues that none of them has
minimal contacts with New Jersey; however, their contacts with the forum state are
not critical. For the purposes of a RICO violation, personal jurisdiction is
established if defendants have “national contacts” and if jurisdiction comports with
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. In re Auto. Refinishing Paint
Antitrust Litig., 358 F.3d 288, 298-99 (3d Cir. 2004).
In a RICO case, the court need not engage in the traditional minimal contacts
analysis because the RICO statute provides for nationwide service of process. 18
U.S.C. § 1965. Under Third Circuit law, where a statute authorizes nationwide
service of process, the jurisdiction of a federal court need not be confined by the
defendant’s contacts with the forum state. In re Auto. Refinishing Paint Antitrust
Litig., 358 F.3d 288, 298 (3d Cir. 2004). Instead, the court employs a “national
contacts analysis.” Id. “National contacts analysis,” as the name suggests, is an
assessment of the defendant’s contacts with the United States as a whole. Id. at 292.
In this case, all of the Cavusoglu Children are residents of the United States and were
served in the United States, except for Munevver, who, since 2010, has permanently
resided in Turkey.
However, Munevver does have minimum contacts with the United States. For
example, her parents live in the United States. She lived in New Jersey and worked
as an employee of HGC between 2007 and 2009. She was allegedly an insider of
HGC. She holds a joint bank account with Robin Cavusoglu, and this bank account
received $15,000 in an allegedly fraudulent transfer from HGC.
Even where Congress has sanctioned nationwide service of process, personal
jurisdiction must still conform to the limits of the Fifth Amendment. In re Auto.
Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 358 F.3d at 299. In other words, the exercise of
personal jurisdiction must still comport with “traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.” Id. (citing Go–Video, Inc. v. Akai Elec. Co., Ltd., 885 F.2d 1406,
2
1415 (9th Cir. 1989); Omni Capital Int’l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97,
102-03 (1987); Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). In this
case, it does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice for this
Court to exert personal jurisdiction over any of the Cavusoglu Children. They were
allegedly insiders of a New Jersey corporation and received funds from that
corporation, with the knowledge that these funds were being transferred to shield
family assets from creditors.
For these reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is denied. An appropriate order
follows.
/s/ William J. Martini
________________________________
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: July 14, 2015
3
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?