American Marketing Alliance v. Stellia Limited et al
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER on 23 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons discussed in the Memorandum Decision and Order, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. If AMA wishes to file a motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint, it must do so within 21 days. Otherwise, the case will be closed. Signed by Judge Robert J. Shelby on 6/27/18. (dla)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
AMERICAN MARKETING ALLIANCE,
LLC, a Utah limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS
v.
STELLIA LIMITED, a Maltese limited
liability company; INTERNATIONAL
COMMERCE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Nevada
corporation; DOMINIC TAMPONE, an
individual; KEN CASSAR, an individual;
and DOES 1 through 10,
Case No. 2:17-cv-309
Judge Robert J. Shelby
Defendants.
Plaintiff American Marketing Alliance, LLC (AMA) filed a Complaint1 against
Defendants on April 20, 2017, after a contractual dispute. Before AMA served its Complaint on
any of the Defendants, it filed an Amended Complaint on September 28, 2017.2 Dominic
Tampone, International Commerce Solutions, and Stellia Limited (Stellia Defendants)3 filed a
Motion to Dismiss,4 arguing insufficient service of process and failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion to Dismiss is
GRANTED.
1
Dkt. 2.
2
Dkt. 3.
3
AMA has not provided proof of service for Defendant Ken Cassar. See Dkt. 15 (summons returned unexecuted as
to Cassar).
4
Dkt. 23.
I.
Service of process
The Stellia Defendants argue the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to comply
with the time limits of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Rule 4(m) states that defendants must be served within 90 days after the complaint is
filed unless service is made in a foreign country. If the plaintiff fails to effect service within 90
days, the court “must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that
service be made within a specified time.”5
AMA’s Complaint was filed April 20, 2017,6 and summonses for that Complaint were
never issued. AMA did not effect service in a foreign country, and therefore no extension under
Rule 4(m) applies. Thus, AMA did not comply with Rule 4(m).
Service of the Amended Complaint was also insufficient. The Amended Complaint was
filed on September 28, 2017, and summonses were issued October 26, 2017.7 However, AMA
improperly filed the Amended Complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides two
methods for a party to amend its complaint: (1) once as a matter of course within 21 days of
service, or (2) “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Where, as here,
the initial Complaint is not timely served, the plaintiff may not amend as a matter of course.8
Additionally, AMA did not receive the Defendants’ consent or the court’s leave. As a result, the
Amended Complaint is of no effect and the initial Complaint is the operative pleading. Because
service of the Complaint was insufficient, it is dismissed without prejudice.
5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
6
Dkt. 2.
7
Dkts 3–7.
8
See Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kan., 441 F.3d 1129, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006) (stating plaintiffs may not use
amendment as a matter of course to evade Rule 4(m)’s deadline); see also Swallow v. S. Jordan City, No. 2:14-CV00881-DN, 2017 WL 2656115, at *4 (D. Utah June 20, 2017).
2
II.
Failure to state a claim for relief
To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”9 In reviewing the motion, the court
accepts “the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true” and draws all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiffs.10
The Stellia Defendants argue the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief because the
claims are brought by the wrong party. The Complaint asserts claims brought on behalf of
AMA, a Utah LLC (AMA-Utah). But when looking to the contract on which the claims are
based, it is clear that the Defendants contracted only with AMA, a Maltese LLC (AMA-Malta).11
However, the Complaint contains no allegations about AMA-Malta. Nevertheless, AMA-Utah
argues its Complaint is proper because (1) AMA-Malta assigned its claims to AMA-Utah, and
(2) AMA-Malta is a “sham business entity.” The court takes up these arguments in turn.
AMA-Utah first argues its Complaint survives because of AMA-Malta’s assignment of
claims. However, the document allegedly assigning AMA-Malta’s claims is not properly
considered at the motion-to-dismiss stage because it is not referred to in the Complaint.12 And
even if the court were to consider the assignment, it post-dates the Complaint by several months
and therefore could not provide a basis for AMA-Utah to assert AMA-Malta’s claims.
Additionally, AMA-Utah’s assertion that AMA-Malta is a sham entity is unavailing. The
Complaint does not allege AMA-Malta was not validly formed. And to the extent AMA-Utah
9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
10
GF Gaming Corp. v. City of Black Hawk, Colo., 405 F.3d 876, 881 (10th Cir. 2005).
11
Dkt. 23, Ex. 1. The court may consider this document at the motion-to-dismiss stage because it is central to
AMA’s claim, referred to in the Complaint, and undisputed in terms of authenticity. See Utah Gospel Mission v.
Salt Lake City Corp., 425 F.3d 1249, 1253–54 (10th Cir. 2005).
12
See id.
3
seeks to pierce the corporate veil of AMA-Malta, it has not alleged any facts in support of that
theory.13
AMA-Utah has alleged a basis only for claims by AMA-Malta, a separate legal entity.
Thus, AMA-Utah has not stated a claim for relief as to itself, and the Complaint must be
dismissed.
CONCLUSION
The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.14 If AMA wishes to file a motion for
leave to file an Amended Complaint, it must do so within 21 days. Otherwise, the case will be
closed.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________________
ROBERT J. SHELBY
United States District Judge
13
See Jones & Trevor Mktg., Inc. v. Lowry, 2012 UT 39, ¶ 16, 284 P.3d 630 (discussing the factors for piercing the
corporate veil under Utah law).
14
Dkt. 2.
4
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?