Newman v. William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust
Decision Date | 25 September 2012 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2:11–cv–479–FtM–29DNF. |
Citation | 897 F.Supp.2d 1270 |
Parties | Daniel S. NEWMAN, as receiver for Founding Partners Capital Management Company; Founding Partner Stable–Value Fund, L.P., Founding Partners Stable–Value II, L.P., Founding Partners Global Fund, Ltd., Founding partners Hybrid–Value Fund, L.P., v. WILLIAM L. GUNLICKS IRREVOCABLE TRUST f/b/o Nissa Cox, Nissa Cox, individually and in her capacity as Trustee of the William L. Gunlicks Ir revocable Trust f/b/o Nissa Cox, William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Annalee Good, Annalee Good, individually and in her capacity as Trustee of the William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Annalee Good, William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o William V. Gunlicks, William V. Gunlicks, individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o William V. Gunlicks, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jonathan Etra, Michael A. Shafir, Broad and Cassel, Miami, FL, for Daniel S. Newman.
Reginald John Clyne, Clyne & Associates, PA, Coral Gables, FL, for William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust.
Nissa Cox, Chicago, IL, pro se.
William V. Gunlicks, Chicago, IL, pro se.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to Strike Complaint (Doc. # 13) filed on December 20, 2011. Plaintiff filed a response on January 20, 2012 1 (Doc. # 16), to which defendants filed a reply on January 27, 2012 (Doc. # 17). Oral argument was held on September 24, 2012.
Plaintiff Daniel S. Newman (plaintiff or Receiver) is the Court-appointed receiver for certain Receivership Entities 2 in SEC v. Founding Partners Capital Mngmt. Co., et al., Case No. 2:09–cv–229–FtM–JES–SPC (M.D.Fla.), currently pending before the undersigned. The plaintiff was appointed as Receiver on May 20, 2009, (Doc. # 1, ¶ 2), and was authorized to institute appropriate legal proceedings on behalf of the Receivership Entities ( Id. at ¶ 5.)
On August 26, 2011, the Receiver filed a six-count Complaint (Doc. # 1) against: (1) the William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o (for the benefit of) Nissa Cox; (2) Nissa Cox, individually and in her capacity as Trustee of the William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Nissa Cox; (3) William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Annalee Good; (4) Annalee Good individually and in her capacity as Trustee of the William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Annalee Good; (5) William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o William V. Gunlicks; and (6) William V. Gunlicks, individually and in his capacity as Trustee of the William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o William V. Gunlicks (collectively defendants) ( Id. at pp. 1–2.) The Complaint asserts state law claims for fraudulent transfer in violation of the Florida Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (FUFTA), Fla. Stat. § 726 et seq. (Counts I, III, V) and state law claims for unjust enrichment (Counts II, IV, VI) arising out of three monetary transfers.
The Complaint alleges that Founding Partners Capital Management Company (FPCMC) falsely represented to its investors that its primary fund, Stable Value, loaned money to Sun Capital Healthcare, Inc. and Sun Capital Inc. (collectively, Sun Capital) to purchase discounted commercial and healthcare receivables, and that Sun Capital would, in turn, pay certain Receivership Entities interest on the loans. ( Id. at ¶ 17.) It further asserts that William L. Gunlicks wrongfully made three transfers of equity of FPCMC to his children's respective trusts for no value and to the detriment of the receivership estate. ( Id. at ¶ 19.) The three transfers were all made on or about December 20, 2008, when FPCMC transferred $83,910.00 to each of the following trusts: (1) the Williams L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o Nissa Cox (Cox Trust), (2) the Williams L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust for f/b/o Annalee Good (Good Trust), and (3) the William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust f/b/o William V. Gunlicks (William V. Gunlicks Trust) ( Id. at ¶¶ 22–24.) The Complaint alleges that the monies transferred were monies “derived from the fraud perpetrated upon investors” ( Id. at ¶¶ 22–24), that the Receivership Entities did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer of monies to the trusts ( Id. at ¶ 25), that defendants knew or had reason to believe the Receivership Entities collateral was at risk ( Id. at ¶¶ 26–28), and that no consideration was paid for the transfers ( Id. at ¶ 33.)
The Complaint alleges companion counts for each transfer. One count seeks to set aside and recover the transfer under the FUFTA, and the companion count seeks to recover the transferred amount under an unjust enrichment theory. The amended motion to dismiss challenges only the FUFTA counts.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13) seeks to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction over the individual defendants, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, defendants seek to strike the Complaint or part of it for seeking improper relief. As a final alternative, defendants seek a more definite statement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). Plaintiff responds that the motion is without merit and should be denied in its entirety.
Defendants assert that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over some or all of them because the Complaint only alleges state law claims, defendants are not named parties in the underlying Securities and Exchange Commission action, and there are insufficient facts alleged to establish supplemental jurisdiction or to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 754 and 1692. (Doc. # 13, p. 3.) The Court disagrees with the conclusion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction of the court is brought under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is a facial challenge to the complaint, as here, the district court may only look to the facts alleged in the complaint, taking them as true. McElmurray v. Consol. Gov't of Augusta–Richmond Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir.2007).
The rule regarding subject matter jurisdiction in a case such as this was succinctly stated by the Fourth Circuit:
The Supreme Court has held that a district court has ancillary subject matter jurisdiction over an action brought by a receiver in furtherance of its appointment where the district court had federal question jurisdiction over the original action in which it appointed the receiver. See Riehle v. Margolies, 279 U.S. 218, 223, 49 S.Ct. 310, 73 L.Ed. 669 (1929) () (citations omitted); Pope v. Louisville, N.A. & C. Ry. Co., 173 U.S. 573, 577, 19 S.Ct. 500, 43 L.Ed. 814 (1899) ( ); White v. Ewing, 159 U.S. 36, 38–39, 15 S.Ct. 1018, 40 L.Ed. 67 (1895) ( ).
Robb Evans & Assocs., LLC v. Holibaugh, 609 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir.2010). See also Haile v. Henderson Nat'l Bank, 657 F.2d 816, 822 (6th Cir.1981); Crawford v. Silette, 608 F.3d 275, 277–78 (5th Cir.2010). The enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 does not change this principle. Holibaugh, 609 F.3d at 363.
Here, the district court appointed Newman as Receiver to, among other things, locate and collect the assets of the Receivership Entities, and authorized the Receiver to take appropriate legal action to fulfill its obligations. There is no question that the SEC enforcement action in which the Receiver was appointed was within the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court, and this current litigation is in furtherance of the Receiver's duties. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.
The individual defendants seek to dismiss the claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction because they are residents of Illinois and the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction. (Doc. # 13, p. 3.) The Court finds that personal jurisdiction is sufficiently alleged.
In SEC v. Vision Commc'ns, Inc., 74 F.3d 287, 290–91 (D.C.Cir.1996), the Court explained the two-step process for obtaining personal jurisdiction in a case also involving a receiver in a proceeding ancillary to an SEC enforcement action. Step one involved Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which now provides that “[s]erving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant ... (C) when authorized by a federal statute.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(C). Step two required a statute that provides the needed authorization to have the defendant served in a district outside the territorial boundaries of the district court where the case was filed. The court found that 28 U.S.C. § 16923 could provide such authorization. To invoke § 1692, a receiver first must comply with 28 U.S.C. § 754, which provides in part that “a receiver appointed in one district may obtain jurisdiction over property located in another district by filing in the district court of that district, within ten days after the entry of his order of appointment, a copy of the complaint and his order of appointment.” See also SEC v. Ross, 504 F.3d 1130, 1145 (9th Cir.2...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Corbett v. Transp. Sec. Admin.
...is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); Newman v. William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust, 897 F.Supp.2d 1270, 1272–73 (M.D.Fla.2012). Attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction come in two varieties, facial attacks and factual attacks. Godiciu v. J.P.......
-
United States v. Richard C. Shaw, Rose O. Shaw, Saint Andrews Ivy, B.T., Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No: 2:16-cv-109-FtM-99CM
...(quoting Johnson v. Dowell, 592 So. 2d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)); see also Newman v. William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Tr., 897 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2012)Page 11 (dismissing a FUFTA claim for failure to adequately identify a "creditor" and "debtor.")). To qualify as a "credi......
-
Sale v. Ferrari Fin. Servs.
...actual and constructive fraud provisions require a creditor-debtor relationship. See Newman v. Williams L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust, 897 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2012). In its amended motion to dismiss,4 the Defendant argues that "the Receiver has failed to and cannot establish t......
-
Sallah v. Nat'l Strategic Corp., CASE NO.: 16-80611-CIV-KAM
...S.E.C. v. Bilzerian, 378 F.3d 1100, 1104 (D.C.Cir. 2004)(and cases cited therein); Newman v. William L. Gunlicks Irrevocable Trust, 897 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1274 (M.D. Fla. 2012); Damian v. International Metals Trading & Investments, Ltd., 243 F. Supp. 3d 1308, 1313( S.D.Fla. 2017). These case......