Bell v. Kaplan
Filing
24
ORDER denying 21 Motion for Reconsideration re 18 Order on Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 9/16/2016. (tmg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:14CV352
KENNETH D. BELL, in his capacity as a
court-appointed Receiver for Rex Venture Group,
LLC d/b/a ZeekRewards.com,
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
HOWARD N. KAPLAN,
)
)
Defendant.
)
________________________________________________)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the Receiver’s Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of
Claim for Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty. In its Order of February 29, 2016
(Doc. No. 18), the Court denied Defendant Kaplan’s Motion to Dismiss except as to the
Receiver’s claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. In so holding, the Court noted
that North Carolina does not recognize such a claim and that Nevada law (where RVG was
incorporated) is inapplicable given that the internal affairs doctrine only applies to relationships
among or between the corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders. As Mr.
Kaplan was not an officer, director, or shareholder of RVG, the Court concluded that the internal
affairs doctrine would not operate to invoke Nevada law.
A party may seek reconsideration of an interlocutory order only “to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” DirecTV, Inc. v. Hart, 366 F.
Supp. 2d 315, 317 (E.D.N.C. 2004). “Motions to reconsider are not proper where the motion
merely asks the court to rethink what the Court had already thought through—rightly or
wrongly.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
The Receiver argues that the Court should change its mind, as the claim for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty should be governed by the law of the state that governs the
underlying breach of fiduciary duty. The Court disagrees. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Receiver’s Motion to Reconsider is hereby
DENIED.
Signed: September 16, 2016
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?