Ronis v. Carmine's Broadway Feast, Inc. et al
Filing
203
OPINION. The motion to dismiss the amended complaint is granted. However, if Croland truly wishes to pursue the kind of contractual claims defined in the earlier opinion of the court, a further amended complaint which is truly concise and clearly d irected to the issue will be allowed. Such an amendment must be filed and served on or before December 21, 2012 or Croland's claims in intervention will be finally dismissed., ( Amended Pleadings due by 12/21/2012.) (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 12/17/2012) (lmb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------X
ELLEN LIBMAN RONIS, as Executrix of the
Estate of Michael Ronis, Deceased,
10 Civ. 3355 (TPG)
OPINION
Plaintiff,
vs.
CARMINE'S BROADWAY FEAST, INC.,
LITTLE FISH CORP., et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------X
GARY CROLAND,
vs.
Intervening Counter-Plaintiff
and Cross-Claimant,
ELLEN LIBMAN RONIS, as Executrix of the
Estate of Michael Ronis, Deceased,
Counter-Defendant
and
CARMINE'S BROADWAY FEAST, INC.,
LITTLE FISH CORP., et al.,
Cross-Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------X
On September 7, 2012 the court dismissed the complaint of the
intervenor, Gary Croland, but granted leave for Croland “to file a concise
amended complaint introducing a breach of contract claim for damages
that is consistent with the written record.”
On October 6, 2012 Croland filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff
has moved to dismiss the amended complaint. This opinion is in
response to that motion.
The problem with the amended complaint is that it is not a clearcut pleading of breach of contract. The salient feature of the new
pleading is the introduction of a concept of “economic interest.” Thus,
paragraph 24 of the amended complaint alleges that Croland’s “economic
interest in Little Fish was 12.50% of Ronis’ ownership in Little Fish.”
Paragraphs 43 and 56 of the amended complaint contain the same type
of allegations with respect to Times Square Barbeque and Carmine’s
Atlantic City.
Presumably, there is a purpose in Croland injecting this concept of
“economic interest” into the case rather than simply alleging that Ronis
contracted that certain things would be done, thus alleging a contractual
cause of action. But, the meaning of “economic interest” and its alleged
effect are not given in the amended complaint. The court has grounds to
believe that Croland wishes to assert some ownership interest in Ronis’
stock in the restaurants or ownership interest in the distributions to
Ronis from the restaurants, but the amended complaint does not go so
far as to say this.
The court will not permit a pleading to stand, which is based upon
a concept that is vague, undefined, and has no clear legal context in
connection with this case.
-2-
The motion to dismiss the amended complaint is granted. However,
if Croland truly wishes to pursue the kind of contractual claims defined
in the earlier opinion of the court, a further amended complaint which is
truly concise and clearly directed to the issue will be allowed. Such an
amendment must be filed and served on or before December 21,2012 or
Croland's claims in intervention will be finally dismissed.
So ordered.
Dated: New York, New York
December 17, 2012
Thomas P. Griesa
U.S.D.J.
, USDCSD~Y
i
I D(X .... HI. "~1';""'1'
,,", i" i.Lt .1
IJ 1 •• ",'-I j:! Fr'TRO~iC,\l.LY mED
Ii t)OC
lL
=--.
#: _ . _ - - - - - - -
\\ DArE FILED: {)/J1IJol
.=-~
c
-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?