Pizarro v. Euros El Tina Restaurant Lounge and Billiards Corp. et al

Filing 234

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND FED. R. CIV. P. 11 SANCTIONS granting 204 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 204 Motion for Sanctions; granting 208 Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons above, Pizarro and Castro& #039;s motions for summary judgment and Rule 11 sanctions are granted. In the absence of merit against the two moving defendants, this holding is applicable as well to the remaining defendants who have been served but have not retained counsel. Th e Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the third-party defendants and Plaintiff Pizano as to the counterclaims and third-party claims and terminate the open motions at ECF Nos. 204 and 208. But for the regulation of fees, this case is now closed. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 8/29/2024) (mml) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

\UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------- X

MARIA JOSE PIZARRO,

Plaintiff,
-againstEUROS EL TINA RESTAURANT LOUNGE
AND BILLIARDS CORP., SANTIAGO
QUEZADA, and SANTIAGO QUEZADA, Jr.,

ORDER GRANTING
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND FED. R.
CIV. P. 11 SANCTIONS

20 Civ. 5783 (AKH)

Defendants.
-andJOSEE. CASTRO, ELADIO CASTRO
PRODUCTIONS, INC., EMITON FERNANDEZ
a.le.a. EMILIO FERNANDEZ, NARCISO
GOMEZ, ZOILIMAR MEJIA a.k.a ZULIMAR
MEJIA, and TOMAS ANDRES PIZARRO
ZEPEDA,
Third Party Defendants.

----------------------------

--------------- X

AL VINK. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Maria Jose Pizarro ("Pizarro") and ThirdPmty Defendants Jose E. Castro and Eladia Castro Productions, Inc. ("Castro Defendants")
move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 on counterclaims and third-party
claims filed by Defendants Euros El Tina Restaurant Lounge ("Euros El Tina), Santiago
Quezada ("Quezada Sr.") and Santiago Quezada Jr. ("Quezada Jr.").
Movants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor because there is no
implied civil right of action for Defendants' claims for wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1343, money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(l)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B),
engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a), and interstate transportation of stolen property in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2314. See Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir.
1994).
As to the remaining claims under civil RICO and state law, Defendants fail to
demonstrate they suffered any losses, or that Movants' alleged conduct were the cause of any
losses. See, e.g., Kregos v. Associated Press, 3 F.3d 656,665 (2d Cir. 1993). Defendants
alleged that from April 2017 to July 2018, Ms. PizmTo and the Co-Conspirators stole over
$435,000 from Defendants, but testified that they had no evidence of Pizano or Castro taking
money from Euros, that no money was stolen prior to 2019, and only that alcohol bottles were
stolen in 2019, prior to the closing ofEuros El Tina. The only evidence to which Defendants cite
in support of their claims is self-serving, conclusory, and internally inconsistent.
Defendants assert they need additional discovery. However, discovery was closed
by order of July 25, 2022. ECF No. 141. Furthermore, Defendants would have known about
their losses from their own books and records prior to filing their claims. In sum, there are no
issues of fact to be tried; the motions for smrnnary judgment are granted.
Third Party Defendant Castro's motion for Rule 11 sanctions is granted. Quezada
Jr. testified at his deposition that he had "no factual basis for why [he] believed Mr. Castro was
helping Miss PizaJTo steal from" Defendants aside from Castro and Pizano's friendship, and
could not show that anything had been stolen from Defendants. The continued prosecution of
this claim, devoid of factual and legal support, is sanctionable. Castro shall show expenses
incuned, post-trial, attributable solely to the defense of the third-party claims, with
contemporaneous time records, to the other side by September 19, 2024. If within two weeks

there is no agreement as to the amount to which Castro is entitled, a motion shall be made by
October I 0, 2024.
For the reasons above, Pizano and Castro's motions for summaiy judgment and
Rule 11 sanctions are granted. In the absence of merit against the two moving defendants, this
holding is applicable as well to the remaining defendants who have been served but have not
retained counsel. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the third-party defendants and
Plaintiff Pizano as to the counterclaims and third-party claims and tenninate the open motions at
ECF Nos. 204 and 208. But for the regulation of fees, this case is now closed.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 29, 2024
New York, New York

~~t;;;::------A~VIN
K.HELLERsTEIN
United States District Judge