Superb Motors Inc. et al v. Deo et al
Filing
172
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re 110 Motion for Order to Show Cause and re 152 Motion for Contempt. As set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, Plaintiffs' motion for modification of the preliminary injunction (ECF No. 110 ) is granted in part and denied in part and Defendants' motion for contempt (ECF No. 152 ) is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1.Plaintiffs' Motion for a Modification of the Preliminary Injunction Order a. Evidentiary Hearing: Retur n 43 Vehicles to Superb: Denied b. Sell the Superb Injuncted Vehicles and Retain Proceeds: Granted c. Return Deo Vehicles: Denied d. Require Deo's Cooperation in Winding Up: Granted e.Lifting the Injunction on the Other Vehicles: Denied 2. Defendants' Motion for Contempt a.Finding Plaintiffs in Contempt: Denied b. Returning the Superb Vehicles: Denied as Moot c. Delivering Titles of the Superb Vehicles to a Court-A ppointed Third-Party: Denied d. Directing Plaintiffs to: i.Store the Vehicles in an Independent Storage Unit: Denied ii. File Proof of Insurance: Granted iii. Provide Date Stamped Odometer Reading Photos: Granted e. Awarding Costs, Fees, and Monetary Sanctions: Denied. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks on 5/8/2024. (DF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
SUPERB MOTORS INC. et al,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
-against-
23-CV-6188 (JMW)
ANTHONY DEO et. al.
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Jamie Scott Felsen, Esq.
Emanuel Kataev, Esq.
Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC
3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3w8
Lake Success, NY 11042
Attorneys for all Plaintiffs
Jeffrey C. Ruderman, Esq.
Russell J. Shanks, Esq.
Cyruli Shanks & Zizmor LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2320
New York, NY 10170
Attorneys for 189 Sunrise Hwy Auto LLC, Northshore Motor Leasing, LLC, Brian Chabrier
(individually and derivatively as a member of Northshore Motor Leasing, LLC), Joshua
Aaronson (individually and derivatively as a member of 189 Sunrise Hwy Auto, LLC), Jory
Baron, 1581 Hylan Blvd Auto LLC, 1580 Hylan Blvd Auto LLC, 1591 Hylan Blvd Auto LLC,
1632 Hylan Blvd Auto LLC, 1239 Hylan Blvd Auto LLC, 2519 Hylan Blvd Auto LLC, 76 Fisk
Street Realty LLC, 446 Route 23 Auto LLC, and Island Auto Management, LLC.
Brian Levine, Esq.
The Levine Firm, P.C.
260 North Broadway, Suite 2a
Hicksville, NY 11801
Attorney for Defendants Anthony and Sarah Deo, Harry Thomasson, Dwight Blankenship, Marc
1
Merckling, Michael Laurie, Car Buyers NYC, Inc., Gold Coast Cars of Syosset LLC, Gold Coast
Cars of Sunrise LLC, Gold Coast Motors Automotive Group LLC, Gold Coast Motors of LIC
LLC, Gold Coast Motors of Roslyn LLC, Gold Coast Motors of Smithtown LLC, UEA Premier
Motors Corp.
WICKS, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiffs Superb Motors Inc., Team Auto Sales LLC, and Robert Anthony Urrutia
(collectively “Plaintiffs”), claim that Deo Defendants 1 engaged in a pattern of fraudulent
misconduct in connection with several vehicle dealerships and accompanying floorplan
agreements. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: (1) violations of the
Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”); (2) violations of the Defend Trade
Secrets Act (“DTSA”); (3) unfair competition; (4) tortious interference; (5) unjust enrichment;
(6) conversion; (7) fraud; (8) breach of fiduciary duty; and (9) conspiracy. (See generally
Amended Complaint filed at ECF No. 65.)
On November 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion before the undersigned to modify the
Honorable Orelia E. Merchant’s order on the preliminary injunction (ECF No. 110). The Court
granted the motion in part and denied it in part, ordering an evidentiary hearing to be held on
February 20, 2024 to determine the location of the 43 outstanding vehicles. 2 (Id.) On the heels
of the hearing, the Deo Defendants filed a motion for the Plaintiffs to be held in civil and
criminal contempt (ECF No. 152). For the reasons that follow, both motions (ECF Nos. 110 and
152) are granted in part and denied in part.
The “Deo Defendants” are comprised of: Anthony Deo, Sarah Deo, Harry Thomasson, Dwight
Blankenship, Marc Merckling, Michael Laurie, Car Buyers NYC Inc., Gold Coast Cars of Syosset LLC,
Gold Coast Cars of Sunrise LLC, Gold Coast Motors Automotive Group LLC, Gold Coast Motors of LIC
LLC, Gold Coast Motors of Roslyn LLC, Gold Coast Motors of Smithtown LLC, and UEA Premier
Motors Corp. (ECF No. 152.)
1
2
These 43 vehicles are identified in ECF No. 56-2.
2
BACKGROUND
Familiarity with the background is assumed and can be found in the undersigned’s prior
Orders. (See ECF Nos. 98 and 134.) Of relevance here, when ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion filed
at ECF No. 110 to modify Judge Merchant’s preliminary injunction order, the undersigned
denied in part Plaintiffs’ request to return the 6 Deo vehicles and the 43 remaining vehicles to
Plaintiffs. 3 (ECF No. 134 at 6.) In addition, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for alternative
relief, that is, to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the 43 vehicles’ whereabouts since
none of the parties could identify the location of these vehicles. Each of the motions is described
below.
A. Evidentiary Hearing and Subsequent Filings
The undersigned held an evidentiary hearing with the Superb Plaintiffs and Deo
Defendants on February 20, 2024 in which exhibits were entered into evidence and witness
testimony was heard from Anthony Deo, Marc Merckling, Dwight Blankenship, Eugene Lowe,
Efaz Anthony Deo, Michael Laurie, and Harry Thomasson, Jr. (ECF Nos. 151, 163.) However,
at the hearing, neither side could establish definitively the whereabouts of the remaining 43
vehicles.
Following the hearing, the parties filed their respective proposed findings. (ECF Nos.
156 and 157.) Defendants affirmed that they do not have personal knowledge as to the 43
vehicles’ location and alleged that Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence at the hearing to establish
that Defendants are the ones in “possession custody, or control” or otherwise have knowledge of
As to Plaintiffs’ other requests, the undersigned (1) denied the request to sell the Superb vehicles and (2)
granted requests for alternative relief by directing Defendants to provide date-stamped photographs and
odometer readings of the 43 vehicles and 6 Deo vehicles, requiring Deo Defendants to establish that they
have stored the cars in a separate storage facility, and requiring Deo Defendants to provide full insurance
coverage for the vehicles. (ECF No. 134.)
3
3
those vehicles (ECF No. 156) and accordingly, Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof to
warrant modification of the order.
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs state that closure of Superb (discussed at length below) constitutes
a “material change of circumstances” warranting modification of Judge Merchant’s order
because it was unable to sell the 30 injuncted vehicles. (See ECF Nos. 55, 157.) Plaintiffs
request that the Court require all 30 injuncted vehicles to be sold and for Superb to retain the
proceeds or otherwise keep the funds from the sale of the vehicles and hold them in escrow.
Plaintiffs state that retaining the sales proceeds would preserve the vehicles’ resale value. They
further contend that doing so would conform to a shareholder’s agreement between the parties,
which stated that if dissolved, Superb should be liquidated under Urrutia’s supervision and with
Deo’s cooperation and the assets should be distributed according to law or as otherwise agreed
upon. Plaintiffs further allege that relief is warranted since Superb cannot wind down without
providing a proper accounting per vehicle. They assert that the Deo Defendants do not have any
rights, title, or interest in the vehicles—they all belong to Superb via the floor plan line of credit.
Therefore, modification is warranted.
Plaintiffs maintain that Deo moved Superb’s vehicles for various events and therefore
knew the location of these vehicles. Deo did not obtain consent from Urrutia to move these
vehicles. Further Deo kept a spreadsheet as to the vehicles’ whereabouts, however, at the
hearing, no one could attest to their location. Notably, none of the vehicles are at Deo’s home or
the Deo appointed lots.
According to Plaintiff Novicky’s declaration, Plaintiffs have been able to locate 15 of the
43 vehicles, which have been wholesaled to Nethanel Orgad of L&F Luxury Autos by Deo in
exchange for cash (ECF No. 157-1 at 4-5):
4
Further, 21 of the 43 vehicles have been located, whereby several of them have either
been sold and remain on the ledger or were marked as trade-in vehicles but never brought to
Superb. (Id. at 6-7.)
1• - ~2
I
,,
l
I?
2l
l6
,.
19
21
39
JI
JS
42
29
43
7
J7
,.
20
..,
22
'"'""'
""SRIJJ.&
I \IS:--...
\\' HAil.t5GS6G!\Ul 17? I
SUI Is.&
I GI I 05.SlSIU 11684I
u,YRJ.lt.39PAJ.S942
SUI Jll
ITJHT20X6601?44 I 7
SU1273
\\' BANfUlS07Cf"08338
SUI J?7
o&TIHZI KK.SJU014962
WAI LH.At-'72KD026699
SUl 221
SUIJC'
ZASPAK.BNOLX'92090
WDOUG8GB4.K.~44S8SO
SUI Ill
SU
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?