Fleetone Factoring, LLC v. International Air Cargo, LLC et al

Filing 29

INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 4/15/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
FLEETONE FACTORING, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-01079

INTERNATIONAL AIR CARGO, LLC,
GIORGIO A. PETRUCCI and JIM DAVIS,
Defendants.
PROPOSED INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Fleetone Factoring, LLC (“Fleet One”) submits this proposed initial case management
order independently. None of the defendants has filed an answer in this proceeding, and the clerk
of court has entered a default against Defendant Giorgio A. Petrucci. None of the defendants
participated in the preparation of this proposed order, although Fleet One’s counsel attempted to
communicate with Mr. Davis and International Air Cargo, LLC (“IAC”) and invite them to
participate in the conference. Fleet One requests that the case management conference scheduled
for Monday, April 15, 2013 at 2:15 p.m. proceed as scheduled to discuss some of the issues
described below.
A.

JURISDICTION: The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because

there is complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest
and costs.
B.

BRIEF THEORIES OF THE PARTIES:
1.

PLAINTIFF: Plaintiff Fleet One is in the business of purchasing account

receivables from its client in exchange for a fee. After due diligence, Fleet One entered
into two purchase agreements (one on December 6, 2011 and one on June 6, 2012) with

International Air Cargo, LLC (“IAC”) pursuant to which Fleet One purchased certain
IAC accounts receivable (collectively, the “Purchase Agreements”). Defendant Jim
Davis, IAC’s chief financial officer, was Fleet One’s primary contact at IAC. Defendant
Giorgio A. Petrucci executed both Purchase Agreements. After execution of the first
Purchase Agreement, Defendant Petrucci executed a personal guaranty of all payments
due to Fleet One and IAC purchased credit insurance to protect Fleet One as loss payee
and beneficiary in the event any of the customer accounts defaulted.
Soon after execution of the second Purchase Agreement, Fleet One noticed
suspicious activity related to the purchased accounts and confronted IAC in a demand
letter alleging breach of the Purchase Agreement and fraud and demanding repayment.
Fleet One then learned that the credit insurance company had received a forged letter
purporting to come from Fleet One and removing Fleet One as beneficiary of the credit
insurance policy. Subsequently, Fleet One received correspondence indicating that
managers of IAC were redirecting payments from its purported customers and claiming
that any agreements it had had with Fleet One were voided and terminated.
Fleet One alleges that the defendants breached their obligations under the
Purchase Agreements by redirecting payment from IAC’s ‘customers’ away from Fleet
One. Defendant Petrucci breached his guaranty by failing to fulfill IAC’s obligations
since he received notice of the breach on August 2, 2012.
Fleet One alleges that the defendants committed fraud. The defendants made
misrepresentations about the nature of IAC’s business and its customers. Fleet One
believes that the defendants established an elaborate system of e-mail domain names,
mail forwarding services and telephone switch boards to cause Fleet One to believe it was

communicating with real companies that were IAC customers, when in fact it was not.
Fleet One believes that the accounts were fictitious and intended to induce Fleet One to
enter into the Purchase Agreements. Fleet One believes the defendants altered invoices
with false and misleading information intended to defraud Fleet One and induce it to pay
substantial sums under the Purchase Agreements. Fleet One also believes that the
defendants sent the forged letter to the insurance company and thereby defrauded Fleet
One of the rights and benefits it should have received under the credit insurance policy.
2.

DEFENDANTS:

C.

ISSUES RESOLVED: None.

D.

ISSUES STILL IN DISPUTE: All.

E.

SERVICE: There are three defendants named in this case. The clerk of court has

entered a default against Defendant Giorgio A. Petrucci because he failed to file an answer in
this case. Defendants International Air Cargo, LLC and Jim Davis were served more recently and
have not filed an answer. The defendants have engaged in very limited communication with
Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendant Petrucci sends only correspondence protesting that he is not “the”
Giorgio A. Petrucci, suggesting various alternative addresses for the ‘real’ defendants at issue,
and demanding that Plaintiff stop serving him with copies of the pleadings. After multiple failed
attempts at service of the remaining two defendants, Plaintiff received email correspondence
from those defendants indicating that they had heard about the pending case, but complaining
that they had not been properly served. They invited Plaintiff to serve them at two addresses.
One of those attempts failed. The other address was for a mail drop, and permitted only an
attempt to accomplish service by certified mail (return receipt requested). Plaintiff’s counsel

received a signed receipt in response to the mailing. Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel received
email communication confirming that the pleadings had been received.
F.

INITIAL DISCLOSURES: In light of the circumstances of this case, Plaintiff

submits that it is not necessary to exchange initial disclosures.
G.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS: The parties shall file dispositive motions, if any, on

or before July 31, 2013. Responses to dispositive motions shall be filed within twenty (20) days
after the filing of the motion. Optional replies may be filed within ten (10) days after the filing of
the response. Briefs shall not exceed twenty (20) pages. No motion for partial summary
judgment shall be filed except on leave of court. Any party wishing to file such a motion shall
first file a separate motion that gives the justification for filing a partial summary judgment
motion in terms of overall economy of time and expense for the parties, counsel, and the court.
H.

ESTIMATED TRIAL TIME: The parties expect the trial to last approximately 1

day.
It is so ORDERED.
_____________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge
APPROVED FOR ENTRY,

s/ Alex MacKay
Garry K. Grooms #012647
Alexandra T. MacKay #020859
STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
401 Commerce Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219-2376
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Fleetone Factoring,
LLC