EDDYSTONE RAIL COMPANY, LLC v. BRIDGER LOGISTICS, LLC et al

Filing 60

ORDER THAT RIOS AND GAMBOA'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS DENIED, ETC. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM FILED BY RIOS AND GAMBOA, AND THE MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY BRIDGER LOGISTICS AND FERRELLGAS, ARE DE NIED, ETC. REQUESTS FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ON THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS ARE DENIED, ETC. ALL DEFTS SHALL FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ROBERT F. KELLY ON 7/19/17. 7/19/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
:
EDDYSTONE RAIL COMPANY, LLC,
:
CIVIL ACTION
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
No. 17-0495
:
BRIDGER LOGISTICS, LLC, JULIO RIOS,
:
JEREMY GAMBOA, FERRELLGAS
:
PARTNERS, L.P., and FERRELLGAS, L.P.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________________:
ORDER
AND NOW, this

19th day of July, 2017, upon consideration of the Motion to

Dismiss filed by Defendants, Julio Rios (“Rios”) and Jeremy Gamboa (“Gamboa”) (Doc. No.
34), and the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint filed by Bridger Logistics, LLC (“Bridger
Logistics”), Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. and Ferrellgas, L.P. (collectively, “Ferrellgas”) (Doc. No.
35), the Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss filed by Plaintiff, Eddystone
Rail Company, LLC (“Eddystone”), and all of the Replies and Sur-Replies thereto, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1.

Rios and Gamboa’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is
DENIED because specific jurisdiction exists over them and they are not
protected by the fiduciary shield doctrine;

2.

the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Rios and Gamboa,
and the Motion to Dismiss filed by Bridger Logistics and Ferrellgas, are
DENIED because Eddystone’s Complaint clearly and adequately alleges

colorable claims against each Defendant for Alter Ego, Intentional Fraudulent
Transfer (12 Pa. C. S. § 5104(a)), Constructive Fraudulent Transfer (12 Pa. C. S.
§ 5105), and Breach of Fiduciary Duties of Care and Loyalty to Creditors;
3.

the requests for oral argument on the Motions to Dismiss are DENIED because
oral argument is unnecessary; and

4.

all Defendants shall file an answer to the Complaint within twenty (20) days of
the date of this Order.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Robert F. Kelly
ROBERT F. KELLY
SENIOR JUDGE

_