Graves v. Goodnow Flow Association, Inc. et al
Filing
29
DECISION AND ORDER granting # 22 GTA Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims asserted against them in Plaintiff's complaint; and those claims are dismissed without prejudice; and denying # 24 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for injunctive relief. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Ludemann, McMorris & Silvestri, P.C., are sua sponte DISMISSED without prejudice, and his state-law claim for legal malpractice being dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court within thirty (30) days of this Decision and Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d). Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 9/27/17. (lmw) (Copy served upon Plaintiff via regular and certified mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
JOHN A. GRAVES,
Plaintiff,
v.
8:16-CV-1546
(GTS/DJS)
GOODNOW FLOW ASS’N, INC., its Agents and Assigns;
DREW CULLEN, Personally and as a Director and Officer
of the Goodnow Flow Ass’n, Inc; ED BANOVIC,
Personally and as a Director and Officer of the Goodnow
Flow Ass’n, Inc; BILL FIBIGER, Personally and as a
Director and Officer of the Goodnow Flow Ass’n, Inc;
CULLEN McVOY, Personally and as a Director and Officer
of the Goodnow Flow Ass’n, Inc.; JERRY CULLEN,
Personally and as a Director and Officer of the Goodnow
Flow Ass’n, Inc; LEE CORMIE, Personally and as a
Director and Officer of the Goodnow Flow Ass’n,
Inc; RAY WOOD, Personally and as a Director and Officer
of the Goodnow Flow Ass’n, Inc; RALPH GREEN,
Personally and as a Director and Officer of the Goodnow
Flow Ass’n, Inc.; JAMES DiPASQUALI,
Personally and as a Director and Officer of the Goodnow
Flow Ass’n, Inc.; and LUDEMANN, McMORRIS &
SILVESTRI, P.C.,1
Defendants.
______________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
JOHN A. GRAVES
Plaintiff, Pro Se
60 Croaker Road South
Merritt, NC 28556
1
In his notice of appearance, counsel for Defendant Ludemann, McMorris &
Silvestri, P.C., advises that Plaintiff incorrectly named his client as “Stanclift, Ludemann,
McMorris & Silvestri, PC.” (Dkt. No. 6.) As a result, the Clerk of the Court is directed to
amend the caption on the docket sheet accordingly.
WALSH & WALSH, LLP
Counsel for Defendants Goodnow Flow Ass’n, Inc.,
Cullen, Banovic, Fibiger, McVoy, Cullen, Cormie,
Wood, Greene, and DiPasquali
42 Long Alley
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
JESSE SCHWARTZ, ESQ.
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP
Counsel for Defendant Ludemann, McMorris &
Silvestri, P.C.
8 Southwoods Blvd., Suite 300
Albany, NY 12211
JONATHAN M.
BERNSTEIN, ESQ.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this action filed pro se by John A. Graves (“Plaintiff”)
against the eleven above-captioned entities and individuals, pursuant to, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. §
1983, is a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and
(6), filed by Defendant Goodnow Flow Association, Inc., and the above-captioned individuals
(collectively, “GFA Defendants”), and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for temporary relief. (Dkt. Nos.
22, 24.) For the reasons set forth below, GFA Defendants’ motion is granted, and Plaintiff’s
cross-motion is denied. In addition, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Ludemann, McMorris
& Silvestri, P.C. (“Ludemann”) are sua sponte dismissed.
I.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
A.
Plaintiff's Complaint
Generally, in his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges as follows. Plaintiff, a resident of North
Carolina, owns real property at 389 Woody’s Road, Lot # 252, in Newcomb, New York. (Dkt.
No. 1 at ¶¶ 2-4 [Plf.’s Compl.].) Plaintiff’s lot is located on the Goodnow Flow, a man-made
2
lake in Essex County. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.) The lot, which was purchased by Plaintiff’s father by
warranty deed in 1957, passed to Plaintiff “in a series of quitclaim deeds from his [f]ather’s
estate, and from siblings.” (Id. at ¶ 5.) The deed contains no reference to any homeowner’s
association. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s “personal initial legal interest” in the lot arose in 1984.
(Id. at ¶ 7.) There are approximately 250 lots on the Goodnow Flow, all of which were “initially
purchased from” a paper company. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 11.) The lots are now owned by people from
various states and countries. (Id. at ¶ 25.)
Defendant Goodnow Flow Association, Inc. (“GFA”) was formed in 1956 “as an
informal group of sportsmen” and incorporated in 1957. (Id. at ¶ 12.) The “main purpose” of
GFA was to obtain leases on lands owned by the paper company to be used for “hunting and
fishing.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) “Initial GFA members” paid dues on a voluntary basis, and those dues
were used to acquire the leases and to pay for “other minor expenses.” (Id. at ¶ 18.)
On or about March 4, 1960, GFA “invited all lot owners to join the organization ‘if they
so desire,’” and “subsequent meeting minutes show repeated efforts to have more lot owners
join.” (Id. at ¶ 19.) “Through 2015,” membership with GFA was “allegedly voluntary.” (Id. at
¶ 20.) However, beginning in or around 1964, GFA’s Board of Directors (“BOD”) has
“threatened with force and violence” “numerous non-member lot owners,” and “destroyed” these
non-members’ property, in an effort “to coerce them to join” GFA. (Id.) At some point in 2013,
Defendant Ray Wood “threatened Plaintiff” and told him that he would be “chased down and
held by [Wood] for a law enforcement officer to arrive, and charge him with trespassing if he
went upon the lake without paying dues.” (Id. at ¶ 24.)
3
During the summer of 2014, Plaintiff “sent questionnaires” to other lot owners, seeking
their responses to “his concerns with the GFA[.]” (Id. at ¶ 21; accord, Dkt. No. 1, Attach. 1, at
16-23 [Questionnaires].) Moreover, “[s]everal lot owners” contacted Plaintiff and expressed
“their confusion and disagreement regarding the GFA’s insistence that the lake could be used
only by paid members.” (Id. at ¶ 22.)
Since GFA’s inception, its “officers and agents” have used the United States Postal
Service, as well as telephone and internet services, to “communicate with one another, with lot
owners, and [with] State and Federal agencies in furtherance of its scheme to gain ownership and
control of all individual lots, and lot owners.” (Id. at ¶ 26.) “They” (apparently referring to
GFA Defendants) “conspired to swindle lot owners,” who had acquired their lots in fee simple
“with no mention of the GFA,” from lawful access to and/or use of the Goodnow Flow, roads,
rights of way, and parking lots. (Id. at ¶ 27.) Over the years, GFA has done numerous other
improper and/or illegal things, including the following: (1) requiring “longtime members” to pay
an “initiation fee” equal to annual dues “in order to become a voting member”; (2) requiring
members who wished to “vote or be heard at meetings” to pay any unpaid dues from 1998
forward, “even if they jointed after that year”; (3) amending GFA’s by-laws “numerous times”
without presenting the amendments to the membership or filing required documents with the
New York State Department of Law’s Real Estate Finance Bureau; (4) charging a five-percent
interest rate, which is illegally compounded monthly, for delinquent fees; (5) being in “the
process of borrowing money from a local bank in furtherance of its staggering expansion plans,
and [with] total disregard of [the] due process rights of owners”; and (6) “ha[ving] proposals to
amend the by-laws to state that the GFA is a HOA” and that lot owners must join. (Id. at ¶¶ 31-
4
32, 34-35, 38, 40-41.) Additionally, GFA’s BOD has performed trenching and “created a
drainage problem on Plaintiff’s land,” which has cost Plaintiff $30,000 to repair. (Id. at 49.)
GFA sued Plaintiff in New York State Supreme Court, Essex County (“State Supreme
Court”), for failure to pay dues after 2012. (Id. at ¶ 50.) GFA was awarded summary judgment
“without any hearing or trial,” and, as a result, Plaintiff “was denied his Constitutional right to
due process: an opportunity to be heard, . . . to present evidence, and to confront those who made
affidavits to the Court in pleadings.” (Id. at ¶ 51.) On appeal, the New York State Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, found that Plaintiff “fail[ed] to preserve” certain
arguments for appeal, including his arguments related to whether or not GFA is a homeowners’
association. (Id. at ¶¶ 52-53.) Because this issue “has never been heard on the merits,”
Plaintiff’s right to due process has been violated.2 (Id. at ¶ 55.) Moreover, Plaintiff has paid (a)
Ludemann $17,550.94 in legal fees, and (b) non-party Carole P. Burley, Esq., $20,000 for
“research and consultations regarding pleadings and trial preparation” as well as “assist[ance] . .
. as he proceeds pro se.” (Id. at ¶ 55.)
The Court will not further recite the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, with
which the parties are familiar. Rather, the Court refers the reader to the Complaint in its entirety.
(Dkt. No. 1.)
2
Moreover, during the lawsuit, members of GFA’s BOD “fraudulently presented”
GFA as a homeowners’ association to the State Supreme Court and the Third Department. (Id.
at ¶ 28.) These representations, and other “untruths and outright lies” presented to the state
courts, “led the [c]ourt[s] to make membership mandatory” and, as a result, lot owners were
“deprived of quiet enjoyment of their land” and forced to pay “illegal and outrageous ‘fees’ to
exercise their riparian rights[.]” (Id. at ¶¶ 28-30.)
5
Based upon the foregoing allegations, and liberally construing his Complaint,3 Plaintiff
appears to assert the following claims, grouped within several non-sequentially numbered
“causes of action”: (1) claims of fraud and unjust enrichment under New York State common
law, “NY GBS Law § 352-C,” and “NY NPCL,” (asserted against GFA, its BOD, Banovic, and
Wood) (id. at ¶¶ 57-64);4 (2) claims of “undue enrichment,” fraud, “extortion,” and “a pattern of
racketeering,” based upon, inter alia, Cullen’s alleged “lies” and “deception” during the course
of the state court proceedings (asserted against GFA, its BOD, and Cullen) (id. at ¶¶ 65-72); (3)
a claim of “fraud upon the court” and “malpractice” based upon the fact that McVoy, a licensed
attorney, “actively participated in” GFA Defendants’ “unjust pattern of threats and extortion
against property owners on the Flow” (asserted against GFA, its BOD, and McVoy) (id. at ¶¶ 7383); (4) claims of “misuse of Legal Process for the purpose of swindling someone” pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., extortion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961(b)(2) and
New York General Business Law § 352-c, and interference with commerce and threats of
violence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (asserted against GFA and its BOD) (id. at ¶¶ 84-92); (5)
a claim of “use of the mails and wire services” for “fraudulent, criminal purposes” under 18
U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343 (asserted against GFA and its BOD) (id. at ¶¶ 95-101; (6) claims of legal
3
The Court notes that it is unclear whether Plaintiff is entitled to special solicitude
as a pro se litigant because it appears that he had the benefit of counsel when drafting his
Complaint in this action. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 55.) See also Meng v. Xinhuanet Co., Ltd., 16-CV6127, 2017 WL 3175609, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2017) (“Courts in this District have observed
that it would be ‘fundamentally unfair’ to extend the special solicitude typically afforded pro se
parties to submissions drafted by lawyers.”) (citing cases). However, out of an abundance of
caution, the Court will afford Plaintiff such special solicitude.
4
The Court assumes that Plaintiff’s reference to “NY GBS Law § 352-C” is
intended to refer to New York General Business Law § 352-c, and that Plaintiff’s reference to
“NY NPCL” is intended to refer to the New York Not-For-Profit Corporation Law.
6
malpractice and “aid[ing] and abett[ing] the . . . other Defendants . . . in the fraudulent,
extortionist racketeering scheme” (asserted against Ludemann) (id. at ¶¶ 102-110); and (7) a
claim of “RICO racketeering” based upon, inter alia, DiPasquali’s efforts to secure financing for
constructing a dam on the Goodnow Flow and his representations to the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation that GFA is a homeowners’ association (asserted
against GFA, its BOD, and DiPasquali) (id. at ¶¶ 111-119). In addition, Plaintiff also requests a
temporary restraining order, freezing GFA’s “accounts and other assets” and proscribing GFA
from collecting “dues, assessments or any money from Plaintiff and other lot owners[.]” (Id. at
¶¶ 120-126, Wherefore Clause.)
B.
Relevant Procedural History5
1.
GFA’s State Court Complaint and Plaintiff’s Answer
In August 2013, GFA sued Plaintiff in State Supreme Court (i.e., the legal proceedings
described in Plaintiff’s Complaint), seeking (1) a monetary judgment for Plaintiff’s unpaid GFA
dues and assessments, and (2) a declaratory judgment regarding Plaintiff’s obligation to make
5
The following procedural history is drawn from Plaintiff’s Complaint, the exhibits
attached thereto, and the record on appeal from the state court case referenced in Plaintiff’s
Complaint, which was filed by GFA Defendants as exhibits to their motion. With respect to the
state court record on appeal, the Court finds the documents constituting the record on appeal
(including briefs and pleadings) to be incorporated by reference in and/or integral to the
Complaint; and the Court may, in any event, take judicial notice of such documents. See
DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 111 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Where a document is not
incorporated by reference, the court may neverless consider it where the complaint ‘relies
heavily upon its terms and effect,’ thereby rendering the document ‘integral’ to the complaint.”);
Graham v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 156 F. Supp. 3d 491, 502 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (“In
deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court can take judicial notice of court
documents.”); see also Bentley v. Dennison, 852 F. Supp. 2d 379, 382 n.5 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“The
Court takes judicial notice of the administrative and state court documents submitted by the
defendants . . . because the facts noticed are not subject to reasonable dispute and are capable of
being verified by sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned.”).
7
future payments. (Dkt. No. 22, Attach. 4, at 17-23 [GFA’s State Sup. Ct. Compl.].)6 More
specifically, GFA claimed that, based upon Plaintiff’s “longstanding knowledge of the nature of
the Goodnow Flow Subdivision,” GFA’s “existence and purposes,” his “actual receipt of
[GFA’s] By-Laws and numerous written communications . . . over the years from” GFA, his
“acceptance and use of” GFA’s facilities, real property, and services, and his prior payment of
annual dues,” Plaintiff “has an implied-in-fact contract with [GFA] whereby” Plaintiff is
“obligated to pay his proportional share of [GFA’s] fair and reasonable costs of providing such
facilities, common property and services . . . .” (Id. at 23.) In his Verified Answer, Plaintiff
denied GFA’s substantive allegations, raised two affirmative defenses (one being that the
amount sought for Plaintiff’s 2013 dues was “excessive and does not represent [his] pro-rata
share”), and interposed a counterclaim that GFA negligently performed road and drainage work
and damaged his lot. (Id. at 24-30 [Plf.’s State Sup. Ct. Ans.].)
2.
GFA’s Motion for Summary Judgment in State Supreme Court
In June 2014, GFA moved for summary judgment in the state court proceeding. (Dkt.
No. 22, Attach. 4, at 37-150; Dkt. No. 22, Attach. 5, at 151-276.) In support of its motion, GFA
argued that an implied-in-fact contract existed between each Goodnow Flow lot owner and GFA,
obligating each to pay annual assessments to GFA in accordance with its by-laws. (See, e.g.,
Dkt. No. 22, Attach. 4, at 35 [Notice of Motion]; id. at 41 [Cullen Aff.].) Moreover, GFA argued
that it had not performed any road or drainage work during the time relevant to Plaintiff’s
property damage claim, and therefore did not cause Plaintiff’s alleged property damage. (Id. at
43-45.)
6
Unless otherwise noted, citations to the state court record on appeal are to the
record pagination (i.e., the page number appearing at the bottom center of each page).
8
3.
Plaintiff’s Opposition to GFA’s Motion for Summary Judgment in
State Court
In opposition to GFA’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff argued that GFA’s
claims for assessments were without merit because (1) voluntary payment of an assessment by a
non-member of GFA does not constitute membership in GFA, (2) the deeds and chain-of-title
documents related to Plaintiff’s lot contain no covenants or restrictions of use, (3) Plaintiff is not
bound by GFA’s by-laws, (4) Plaintiff is obligated to pay only a share of the common expenses
that benefit his property and which he uses, (5) GFA improperly sought to recover more than
Plaintiff’s pro-rata share of the common expenses because owners of multiple lots paid only a
single-lot assessment annually, (6) GFA cannot acquire new lands and compel non-members to
pay for those lands and related services without limitation, and (7) questions of material fact
existed as to whether volunteer road work done by GFA members and board members caused
damage to Plaintiff’s property. (Dkt. No. 22, Attach. 5, at 277-79 [Atty. Aff.]; id. at 280-84
[Graves Aff.].)
4.
State Supreme Court’s Decision and Order
In a Decision and Order filed on December 3, 2014, State Supreme Court Justice Thomas
Buchanan granted GFA’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff’s counterclaim.
(Dkt. No. 22, Attach. 4 at 5-8 [Decision and Order, filed Dec. 3, 2014].) Based upon the
evidence submitted by GFA (including affidavits of GFA president Drew Cullen and GFA
member Robert Greene, describing the history of GFA and Plaintiff’s family’s involvement with
GFA), Justice Buchanan found that an implied-in-fact contract existed and provided “the basis
for the unpaid assessments being sought[.]” (Id. at 6.) Relying on, inter alia, Seaview Ass’n of
Fire Island, N.Y. v. Williams, 69 N.Y.2d 987, 989 (N.Y. 1987), Justice Buchanan rejected
9
Plaintiff’s argument that his assessment should be reduced because Plaintiff “is interested only in
using the lake for fishing and is not interested in hunting,” and held that (1) the implied-in-fact
contract obligated Plaintiff to pay a proportionate share of the full cost of maintaining the
facilities and services provided at the Goodnow Flow, and (2) the method of calculating dues and
assessments per lot owner was set forth in GFA’s by-laws and was consistent with the
requirements of New York Not-For-Profit Corporation Law §§ 507 and 611. (Id. at 7.) Finally,
the State Supreme Court concluded that GFA established its entitlement to summary judgment
with respect to Plaintiff’s counterclaim (based on the affidavit of Kenneth Helms, who asserted
that he did contract to perform work at the Goodnow Flow, but did not perform any work in the
vicinity of Plaintiff’s lot). (Id. at 7-8.)
5.
Plaintiff’s Appeal to the Third Department
Plaintiff appealed the State Supreme Court’s Decision and Order, which the Third
Department affirmed. Goodnow Flow Ass’n Inc. v. Graves, 135 A.D.3d 1228 (N.Y. App. Div.
3d Dep’t 2016). More specifically, as the Third Department explained, Plaintiff’s “primar[y]
argu[ment]” was that, “because some of [GFA’s] expenditures–such as the leasing of additional
lands for members' hunting and recreational activities–do not provide a specific benefit to his
property, it was error for Supreme Court to find that he is obligated to pay his assessed share of
annual dues.” Goodnow Flow Ass’n Inc., 135 A.D.3d at 1229. The Third Department found
Plaintiff’s argument to be lacking in merit because
[i]t is well-established law that when an owner has acquired
property with knowledge that a private community homeowners’
association provides facilities and services for the benefit of
community residents, the purchase of property there may manifest
acceptance of conditions of ownership, among them payment for
the facilities and services offered. In such cases, an implied
10
contract arises under which the owner is obligated to pay a
proportionate share of the full cost of maintaining those facilities
and services, not merely the reasonable value of those actually
used by [the owner]. Moreover, absent a showing of bad faith or
breach of fiduciary obligations, courts will not substitute their
judgment for that of a community or homeowners’ association
with respect to the wisdom of their expenditures.
Id. at 1229-30 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Based upon these points of law,
the Third Department summarized the evidence presented, and its conclusions, as follows:
[GFA] met its prima facie burden of entitlement to summary
judgment by submitting, among other things, the affidavit of its
president in which he recounted the history of [GFA] and averred
that it has been in existence since at least 1957, well before
defendant obtained sole title to his lot in 2012. The bylaws that
were in effect at the time that [Plaintiff] obtained title were also
submitted; they required members to pay dues and listed among
[GFA’s] purposes “[t]o provide outdoor recreation for members of
[GFA], their families and their guests” and “[t]o lease land
adjacent to the Goodnow Flow for hunting, fishing and other
recreational purposes.” [GFA] further submitted photographs of
signage posted at conspicuous locations around the lake, such as a
parking lot and a boat launch, which indicated that the lake and
amenities were for the exclusive use of [GFA’s] members. In
opposition, [Plaintiff] did not dispute that he had knowledge of
[GFA’s] existence or activities on behalf of its members at the time
that he took title to the lot, but instead merely contested certain
expenditures by [GFA] that he deemed imprudent and
“unnecessary” because, in his view, they offered no benefit to his
property. Thus, as [Plaintiff] failed to raise a triable issue of fact,
we find no error in Supreme Court's holding that an implied
contract existed between the parties.
Id. at 1230. Moreover, the Court noted that, to the extent that Plaintiff argued that GFA was not
a homeowners’ association but rather “a voluntary fishing and hunting club,” his argument was
unpreserved for appellate review because he did not raise it “before Supreme Court, and, in fact,
consistently referred to [GFA] as a homeowners’ association in his opposition papers.” (Id. at
1229 n.2.)
11
C.
Parties’ Briefing on GFA Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
1.
GFA Defendants’ Memorandum of Law
Generally, in support of its motion to dismiss, GFA Defendants assert five arguments: (1)
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because (a) Plaintiff lost in both
State Supreme Court and on appeal to the Third Department, (b) Plaintiff alleges, in his
Complaint, that he was denied his right to due process as a result of the state courts’ decisions
(which declared, among other things, that he was required to pay dues to GFA), (c) Plaintiff is
inviting the Court to review and reject the decisions rendered by State Supreme Court and the
Third Department, and he cannot succeed on any of his claims (except his legal malpractice
claim) unless this Court rejects the conclusions reached by the state courts, and (d) the state court
action concluded before Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this case; (2) Plaintiff’s claims are barred
by the doctrine of res judicata because (a) the state court action commenced by GFA against
Plaintiff was adjudicated on the merits to a final conclusion, (b) Plaintiff’s claims in this case
were, or could have been, raised in the state court action, and (c) Plaintiff seeks the same relief in
this case as he sought in the state court action; (3) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of
collateral estoppel because (a) the “essential issues” raised by Plaintiff’s Complaint were
necessarily decided in the state court action (including whether Plaintiff is bound by GFA’s bylaws, whether Plaintiff is obligated to pay GFA dues and assessments, and whether GFA
Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the alleged damage to his property), and (b) Plaintiff had a
full and fair opportunity to litigate these issues in the state court action; (4) Plaintiff has failed to
allege facts plausibly suggesting an entitlement to relief with respect to any of his claims; and (5)
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Fibiger, Cullen, Cormie, and Green must be dismissed
12
because (a) they were apparently named as Defendants solely “due to their role as directors of
the GFA,” (b) to hold “an individual board member . . . personally liable,” a plaintiff must allege
facts plausibly suggesting independent tortious conduct that is “separate and apart from the
collective action of the board,” and (c) Plaintiff’s Complaint contains no specific claims or
allegations against these individual Defendants. (Dkt. No. 22, Attach. 1, at 10-25 [GFA Defs.’
Memo. of Law].)7
7
More specifically, with respect to their fourth argument, GFA Defendants argue
as follows: (a) Plaintiff’s fraud claim must be dismissed because (i) Plaintiff’s allegations do not
meet the heightened pleading standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), (ii) to the extent that
Plaintiff’s fraud claims are predicated on the allegations that GFA’s prosecution of the state
court action and attempts to collect dues constitute a fraudulent scheme to deprive Plaintiff of his
property rights, these allegations do not plausibly suggest a basis for relief, (iii) to the extent that
Plaintiff has asserted a claim challenging the propriety of past amendments to GFA’s by-laws,
any such claim is untimely under the four-month statute of limitations set forth in New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) 217(1), and (iv) to the extent that Plaintiff may be
understood to assert a claim under the Martin Act, New York General Business Law § 352-c, the
Martin Act concerns fraud in the sale of securities and commodities and does not provide a
private cause of action; (b) Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim must be dismissed because he has
failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that GFA’s attempt to collect dues (to which it has a
right, as determined in the state court action) constitutes unjust enrichment; (c) Plaintiff’s
extortion claims must be dismissed because his Complaint (including the attachments thereto,
consisting of letters and e-mails sent to Plaintiff from other lot owners in or around 2014) does
not allege facts plausibly suggesting that (i) GFA has wrongfully sought to obtain property from
Plaintiff to which it has no right or (ii) any of GFA Defendants’ actions constituted a threat of
force, violence, or fear directed toward Plaintiff; (d) Plaintiff’s mail fraud and wire fraud claims
must be dismissed because his Complaint (including the attachments thereto) does not allege
facts plausibly suggesting that (i) GFA constitutes a criminal enterprise or (ii) any of the
Defendants had a specific intent to defraud him; (e) Plaintiff’s RICO claims must be dismissed
because his Complaint (including the attachments thereto) does not allege facts plausibly
suggesting that GFA Defendants’ regular business activities (and their attempt to enforce their
rights in the state court action) constitute racketeering activities, much less a pattern of such
activity; and (f) Plaintiff’s “malpractice and fraud” claims against McVoy must be dismissed
because his Complaint (including the attachments thereto) does not allege facts plausibly
suggesting that (i) McVoy performed any fraudulent act, (ii) McVoy appeared in the state court
action as GFA’s attorney (as opposed to appearing in his “lay capacity”), (iii) McVoy had an
attorney-client relationship with Plaintiff, or (iv) McVoy’s negligence was a proximate cause of
any damages suffered by Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 22, Attach. 1, at 17-24.)
13
2.
Plaintiff’s Opposition Memorandum of Law
Generally, liberally construing his opposition memorandum of law, Plaintiff asserts eight
arguments in opposition to GFA Defendants’ motion: (1) the state court action “was about
money owed for services,” which is “a minuscule part” of his RICO claim; (2) the state courts’
decisions were predicated on “untrue, fraudulent affidavits” filed by GFA and members of its
BOD; (3) GFA “continues to send bills” for dues to “all lot owners,” as well as “veiled threats of
legal action for failure to pay” those dues; (4) GFA’s BOD has “threatened to remove docks of
lot owners that do not pay” dues; (5) GFA “recently presented a by-law amendment requiring
payment of GFA’s legal bills with collected
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?