Bidonthecity.com, LLC et al v. Halverston Holdings Limited et al
OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING in part and DENYING in part 14 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Mikhail Sosnovsky, Halverston Holdings Limited BVI, Valery Senko, Sergey Lavruhkin, Christophe Charlier, Anton Kiryukhin, Ekaterina Salnikova, Vladimir Pakhomov, Neil Osborn, Michael Hammond, RBC-TV Moscow. For the reasons stated above, Moving Defendants' motion for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED as to Halverston and RBC, but GRANTED as to Sergey Lavrukhin, Mikhail Sosnovsky, Vla dimir Pakhomov, Neil Osborn, Michael Hammond, Christophe Charlier, Valery Senko, Ekaterina Salnikova, and Anton Kiryukhin, the "Individual Defendants." The Individual Defendants are hereby dismissed as defendants for this Court's lack of personal jurisdiction over them. Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss for inadequate service is DENIED as to Halverston and RBC, provided that RBC may renew its motion if Plaintiffs do not effect service on the Moving Defendants by hand deliv ering the summons, complaint and any other necessary documents to the New York office of Herbert Smith Freehills New York LLP, to the attention of Garrett Kamen, Esq. and David Wallace, Esq., within 14 days from the date of this Order. Moving Defenda nts' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Specifically, the motion is granted as to Count I (breach of joint venture), Count III (promissory estoppel), Count IV (wrongful termination of partnershi p or joint venture), Count V (breach of fiduciary duty), Count VI (fraud and/or fraudulent inducement) and Count VII (tortuous interference of contract). The motion is denied as to Count II (breach of contract) and Count VII (defamation). The Clerk is respectfully directed to close this motion (Dkt. No. 14). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 3/31/2014) (kgo)
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?