UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION v. HERBST
Filing
50
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr on 12/19/2011. (gxh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
__________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
v.
)
)
)
JACKIE HERBST,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
THE UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION AS RECEIVER FOR
PENNY LANE PARTNERS, L.P.,
Hon. Garrett E. Brown, Jr.
Civil Action No. 08-01962
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BROWN, Chief Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction (Doc. No. 41) filed by defendant Jackie Herbst (“Defendant”). The Court has
considered the parties’ submissions and decided the matter without oral argument pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the following reasons, the Court will deny Defendant’s
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, the United States Small Business Administration (SBA) as Receiver for Penny
Lane Partners, L.P., brought an ancillary action to recover unfunded capital contributions it
claimed that Defendant owed as a Private Limited Partner of Penny Lane. Penny Lane was a
licensed Small Business Investment Company, and it was placed into Receivership under the
SBA by this Court’s Order of May 16, 2006. United States v. Penny Lane Partners, LP, Civ. No.
06-1894 (D.N.J. May 16, 2006).
By Opinion and Order of November 14, 2011, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment in the amount requested, $103,500 plus 10% interest, pursuant to Article 5.11
of the Limited Partnership Agreement (LPA) (Doc. Nos. 42, 43). On November 14, 2011,
Plaintiff moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. No. 41).
II.
ANALYSIS
Defendant makes no new arguments in support of the motion to dismiss. Instead he
reiterates several assertions made in the untimely affidavit that this Court construed as motion in
opposition to summary judgment (Doc. No. 42 at 3). Plaintiff argues that the Court has no subject
matter jurisdiction because the Complaint identified the partnership in receivership as “Penny
Lane Capital Partners, L.P.,” as opposed to “Penny Lane Partners, L.P.” He also challenges the
validity of the LPA. Neither of these assertions undermine subject matter jurisdiction.
The challenged reference appears to have been a simple scrivener’s error, and Defendant
has shown no prejudice by the mistake. The Complaint clearly identified “Penny Lane Partners,
L.P.,” as the entity in receivership in both the Complaint caption and in paragraph 2 of the
Complaint, which cited this Court’s order in the receivership action, United States v. Penny Lane
Partners, L.P., Civ. No. 06-1894 (D.N.J. May 16, 2006). Plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment expressly identified the partnership as “Penny Lane Partners, L.P.” (Doc. No. 36 at 1),
and Defendant’s untimely response clearly demonstrated that he understood Plaintiff to be
referring to Penny Lane Partners, L.P., as opposed to another entity. The Federal Rules of Civil
2
Procedure provide that “[p]leadings must be construed so as to do justice.” FED . R. CIV . P. 8(e).
Defendant has had a full and fair opportunity to respond to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, but
has made no effort to show unfair surprise or prejudice from this pleading error. This Court
concludes that no injustice would result by construing the Complaint’s reference to Penny Lane
Capital Partners, L.P., to mean the entity that both parties understood Plaintiff to be referring
to—Penny Lane Partners, L.P. Accordingly, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion.
This Court also has jurisdiction over this ancillary action pursuant to the Court’s May 16,
2006 Order in the receivership action, Civ. No. 06-1894, and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 687(c), and
28 U.S.C. §§ 754, 1367, and 1692. Article 10.8 of the LPA provides that Delaware law governs
disputes arising from the agreement. New Jersey law gives effect to contractual choice of law
provisions unless the law of the selected forum “has no substantial relationship to the parties or
the transaction and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties’ choice,” or otherwise would
violate New Jersey public policy. N. Bergen Rex Transport, Inc. v. Trailer Leasing Co., 158 N.J.
561, 568–69 (1999). This Court previously held that because Plaintiff has set forth evidence that
Defendant executed the LPA and therefore was a Private Limited Partner of Penny Lane. (Doc.
No. 42 at 5). Defendant reiterates a number of conclusory arguments for why he does not owe the
capital contribution to which he committed in the LPA, but these arguments are not supported by
coherent factual allegations and Defendant fails to put forth a cogent explanation for how (or
when) his capital commitment was reduced in accordance with the terms of the LPA.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction (Doc. No. 41) is denied. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum
3
Opinion.
Dated: December 19, 2011
s/ Garrett E. Brown, Jr.
GARRETT E. BROWN, JR., U.S.D.J.
4
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?