Sarva v. Comerica Bank

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court sees no serious prejudice or inefficiency in proceeding without Saakvitne because it can accord complete relief with the existing parties, and Saakvitne has no interest in the trusts' assets beyond their management; Comerica's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to transfer are therefore DENIED. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 10/21/2016. (Fernandez, Erica)

..

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------x
RAMESH SARYA, individually and on
behalf of RAMESH SARVA CPA, P.C.,

FILED

U.S.

*

J1.~~D.N.Y.

OCT 2~2016

*

BROOKLYN OFFICE

Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
15-0219 (FB)

-againstCOMERICA BANK, in its capacity as
trustee,

Defendant.

--------------------------------------------------x
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff
JASON R. HARRINGTON

13 Schoolhouse Lane
Great Neck, New York 11020

For the Defendant
PETER H. BALES
55 Second Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, California 94105

BLOCK, Senior District Judge:

In this breach of contract action, Ramesh Sarva ("Sarva") alleges that Comerica
Bank ("Comerica"), the trustee of six trusts to which Sarva was a plan administrator,
failed to pay him for his management services to those trusts. Comerica moves to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) 1 and, alternatively, to
transfer this action to the Central District of California. Comerica argues the trusts'

1

After a pre-motion conference regarding Comerica's proposed FRCP 12(b)(7)
motion, the Court directed the parties to submit letter briefs addressing whether
Saakvitne is a necessary and indispensable party. The Court takes Comerica's letter
brief as motions to dismiss and, alternatively, transfer venue.

•

current court-appointed plan administrator, Nicholas Saakvitne ("Saakvitne"), is a
necessary and indispensable party to this action under FRCP 19.
"The general rule regarding a [FRCP] 12(b)(7) motion where a contract is
involved is that [a] non-party to a commercial contract ordinarily is not a necessary
party to an adjudication of rights under the contract." Conn Tech Development Co. v.
University of Connecticut Educ. Properties, Inc., 102 F.3d 677, 682 (2d Cir. 1996)

(internal quotations omitted). Saakvitne is not a party to the alleged contract between
Sarva and Comerica. Comerica argues that Saakvitne is nevertheless necessary
because Sarva seeks a judgment against assets belonging to the trusts that Saakvitne
administers. But a person is only necessary when, "in that person's absence, the court
cannot accord complete relief among existing parties" or that person has an interest

in the action that would be impeded ifthe person was not joined. FRCP 19(a)(l ). As
an administrator, Saakvitne merely manages the assets; he has no ownership interest

or discretion to withhold those assets from satisfying a judgment. Indeed, the order
appointing Saakvitne as plan administrator explicitly states that he "shall not be held
responsible for any claims against ... the Directed Trustee ... which existed, arose,
matured, or vested prior to his appointment." Def. Brief Ex. A. The Court sees no
serious prejudice or inefficiency in proceeding without Saakvitne because it can
accord complete relief with the existing parties, and Saakvitne has no interest in the
2

•

trusts' assets beyond their management; Comerica's motion to dismiss or,

alternatively, to transfer are therefore DENIED/\
SO ORDERED

I

s/Frederic Block

lfiEDiiiiic BLofif<
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
October 21, 2016

3