Hoyle v. Dimond et al

Filing 114

DECISION AND ORDER denying Plaintiff's 107 MOTION for Reconsideration. Before the court considers the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on their counterclaims, counsel are directed to advise the court within two weeks whether they wish to make a final attempt at mediation. Signed by Hon. John T. Curtin on 11/7/2012. (JEC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ERIC E. HOYLE,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

08-CV-347C

FREDERICK DIMOND, ROBERT DIMOND,
and MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY,
a New York Not-for-Profit Corporation,
Defendants.

APPEARANCES:

CHAMBERLAIN D’AMANDA OPPENHEIMER &
GREENFIELD LLP (K. WADE EATON, ESQ., OF
COUNSEL), Rochester, New York for Plaintiff.
DUKE, HOLZMAN, PHOTIADIS & GRESENS LLP,
(CHARLES C. RITTER, JR., ESQ., OF COUNSEL),
Buffalo, New York for Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
On June 22, 2012, this court issued a Decision and Order granting the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part and dismissing the complaint (Item
106). On July 17, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration (Item 107). Prior to
decision on the motion, the case was referred to mediation. The court has now been
informed that mediation was unsuccessful. Accordingly, the court will address the
motion for reconsideration.
Plaintiff argues that the court applied an erroneous legal standard in assessing
his claims of unjust enrichment and money had and received under New York law.
Plaintiff further argues that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on

plaintiff’s equitable claims because he raised genuine issues of material fact.
Defendants have submitted a memorandum in response to the motion (Item 109), and
plaintiff filed a letter in reply (Item 110). The court will assume familiarity with the facts
of the case. For the reasons that follow, the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
denied.

DISCUSSION
The standard for a motion to reconsider is strict. “Reconsideration will generally
be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the
court overlooked - matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter
the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257
(2d Cir. 1995). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted when the moving
party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided.” Id.
In discussing plaintiff’s equitable claims, the court identified the elements of the
claims under New York law and noted that, for both unjust enrichment and money had
and received, the court must consider the principles of equity and good conscience.
See Diesel Props. S.r.l. v. Greystone Bus. Credit II LLC, 631 F.3d 42, 55 (2d Cir.
2011); Nordlicht v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 799 F.2d 859, 865 (2d Cir. 1986), abrogated on other
grounds by Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. AT &T, 138 F.3d 479 (2d Cir. 1998). The
court did not improperly require plaintiff to establish wrongdoing on the part of the
defendants, but found that, as the claims were based on an unproven
misrepresentation, the equities did not support plaintiff’s claims.

2

Plaintiff further argues that he has raised factual issues precluding summary
judgment on his equitable claims. Specifically, plaintiff states that it is a “question of
material fact whether defendants’ statements about Joseph Natale and his founding of
MHFM [Most Holy Family Monastery] were made recklessly or dishonestly, with the
intent to obtain money or credibility.” (Item 107, p. 4). The court has found that any
examination into the genesis of MHFM is a doctrinal determination that is prohibited by
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is outside the court’s
jurisdiction. Moreover, plaintiff has presented no admissible proof that the defendants
misrepresented the circumstances of the establishment of MHFM.
Finally, plaintiff argues that he has raised genuine issues of material fact
regarding the terms of his transfer of funds to MHFM. To the extent that plaintiff now
seeks to litigate the terms of an alleged written agreement, the court notes that plaintiff
failed to plead a contract claim or offer any evidence of a valid and enforceable
contract. In pleading his equitable claims in the amended complaint, plaintiff alleged
that the defendants “led the plaintiff to believe that they would, indeed, instruct him in
the path to becoming a Benedictine monk” and in reliance on those promises, he
transferred personal assets with a value in excess of $1,541,089.00 to MHFM (Item 42,
¶¶ 70, 71). Plaintiff also alleged that his transfers “were based on the plaintiff’s false
beliefs that the Dimond defendants were Benedictine monks and that MHFM was a
Benedictine community.” Id., ¶ 77. Finally, plaintiff alleged that he transferred his funds
to MHFM “in the mistaken belief that the Dimond defendants had the authority to
instruct him in the disciplines which would enable him to become a Benedictine monk.”
Id., ¶ 79.
3

All of the plaintiff’s equitable claims are “based on the premise that plaintiff was
falsely led to believe that the defendants were Benedictine monks, that MHFM was a
Benedictine monastery, and that he could become a Benedictine monk through study at
MHFM.” (Item 106, p. 22). The record indicates that plaintiff was aware, at the time he
made his donations, that MHFM operated outside the governance of the publiclyrecognized Benedictine order. As stated previously, for the court to determine whether
MHFM is a Benedictine community and the defendants are Benedictine monks would
require an examination of religious doctrine over which this court has no jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION
The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Before the court considers
the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on their counterclaims, the parties shall
advise the court within two weeks whether they wish to make a final attempt at
mediation.
So ordered.

________\s\ John T. Curtin___
JOHN T. CURTIN
United States District Judge
Dated:

11/7/2012

4