Carl v. Hamann
| Decision Date | 29 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | 2:16-cv-03863 (ADS)(AKT) |
| Parties | BERNARD CARL, Plaintiff, v. THOMAS HAMANN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
Silverberg, P.C.
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
Central Islip, NY 11722
By: Karl J. Silverberg, Esq., Of Counsel.
30 Clemens Court
Rocky Hill, CT 06067
By: George W. Kramer, Esq., Of Counsel.
On July 12, 2016, plaintiff Bernard Carl (the "Plaintiff") brought this action against Richard Edwards ("Edwards"), John Hawkins ("Hawkins"), Specialist Cars of Malton Limited, Graeme Scholes ("Scholes"), Left Hand Drive Ltd., Paul Sweeney ("Sweeney"), PHS Consultants, Andrew Howarth ("Howarth"), Christopher Williams ("Williams"), Trevor Smith ("Smith"), Foos China Trading, Vikash Limbani ("Limbani"), Landmark Car Co., Jeffrey Pattinson ("Pattinson"), and Thomas Hamann asserting violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.SC. § 1961, et seq. ("RICO") and common law claims for civil conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, trespass to chattel, unjust enrichment, and accounting. The allegations centered around the theft by Edwards of millions of dollars' worth of vehicles from the Plaintiff.
On April 9, 2018, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims against all defendants other than Thomas Hamann (the "Defendant").
On October 25, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting only two causes of action against the Defendant, one for trespass to chattels and one for violating the RICO statute through a pattern of wire fraud predicate acts.
Presently before the Court are motions by the Defendant to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P" or "Rule") 12(b)(6), and for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56. For the following reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismisses the Amended Complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for summary judgment as moot.
This case relates to several vintage automobiles that the Plaintiff purchased at the behest of Edwards. In the fall of 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a non-exclusive, fee-for-service, brokerage agreement with Edwards through which the Plaintiff would purchase and re-sell cars brought to his attention by Edwards in exchange for a fee tied to the profitability of the cars. Under the agreement, Edwards owned no interest or title in the cars and possessed no authority to make purchases or sales on the Plaintiff's behalf without the express approval of the Plaintiff. Between November 2013 and November 2014, the Plaintiff purchased approximately seventeen vintage automobiles on the recommendation of Edwards pursuant to this agreement, including an orange1973 Porsche 2.7RS Touring (the "Porsche Touring") and a 1973 white Porsche 2.7RS Lightweight (the "Porsche Lightweight") (together, the "Porsche motorcars"). On October 12, 2015, Edwards stole eight of those cars and sold them on the black market for less than market value.
The Defendant is a vintage car dealer who attempted to purchase the Porsche motorcars for a client through Edwards between August 1, 2015 and October 15, 2015 (the "Negotiation Period"). In essence, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant conspired with Edwards to facilitate Edwards' theft of the cars by delaying the Plaintiff's ability to recover the vehicles in a timely manner. Specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant created false documents showing a buyer's readiness to acquire the Porsche motorcars that resulted in the entities holding the vehicles refusing to turn them over to the Plaintiff.
On August 28, 2015, George Kramer ("Kramer"), at the Defendant's request, sent the following email to Edwards:
To whom it may concern: The undersigned attorney hereby confirms that he had received EUR 1.4 million to be held for Thomas Hamann toward the purchase of a Porsche Carrera 2.7 Touring and a Porsche Carrera 2.7RS Lightweight subject to Buyer's satisfactory inspection. Payment shall be made upon the conclusion of satisfactory Inspection of said cars. The price is ex their current location in the U.K. George Kramer Attorney-at-Law.
ECF 147 ¶ 8 (hereinafter the "Kramer email"). The Defendant testified in a related action filed in the State of Connecticut Superior Court for the Stamford/Norwalk Judicial District, Hamann v. Carl, No. 16-cv-6027515 (hereinafter the "Connecticut Action"), that he knew this email was false because neither Kramer nor the Defendant had the 1.4 million euros at the time, as the buyer had not yet committed to purchasing the Porsche motorcars. The Defendant also testified that the target of the email was the Plaintiff, because it was intended to be presented to the owner of the two cars.
On August 31, 2015, the Defendant received an email from Edwards that was to be forwarded to the Defendant's client, Andreas Pohl ("Pohl"). The email falsely stated that Edwards had known the Defendant for over 20 years, and that Edwards and the Defendant had "done tens of millions of dollars of deals" together, when they had done "zero dollars of deals[.]" At the same time, Edwards pressured the Defendant to move the sale of Porsche Motorcars forward.
On September 1, 2015, the Defendant sent another email to Pohl stating: "I will send [the owner of the cars] from my money today a deposit, a fully refundable deposit in the amount of 200,000 because I don't want to lose my faith and jeopardize a long business relationship and friendship." ECF 147 ¶ 16 (hereinafter the "Pohl email"). The Defendant testified in the Connecticut Action that he knew that he would not use his own money and instead would get the money from elsewhere. The Defendant admitted that he was misleading Pohl in an attempt to push him to move forward with the transaction, but that Pohl was not ready to do so until the cars passed inspection.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Kramer email was used to his detriment with two audiences: Bury Leasing Ltd. ("Bury") and Specialist Cars Malton ("SCM").
During the Negotiation Period, the Plaintiff believed the Porsche motorcars were being held for his account by SCM, who he had repeatedly demanded to return the cars to his possession. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, the Porsche Touring was actually being held by another lender, Bury, as collateral for a loan taken out by an associate of Edwards based on misrepresentations as to its ownership.
On or about August 29, 2015, a copy of the Kramer email was presented to Bury by an associate of Edwards, to serve as evidence of the impending sale of the Porsche Touring. At thattime, the loan secured by Porsche Touring was seriously in default and Bury was threatening to liquidate its collateral, i.e., to sell the Porsche Touring and use the funds to repay the loan.
After receiving the Kramer email, Bury chose to defer any such liquidation and to retain possession of the Porsche Touring until mid-October 2015. The Plaintiff believes that had Bury chosen to liquidate the Porsche Touring, he would have recovered the car either through Bury learning the Car's true ownership or by his discovery of the advertisement of the car for sale.
On September 14, 2015, in response to the Plaintiff's repeated demands for the return of several of his cars, SCM advised the Plaintiff that it would not return either of his Porsche motorcars because it was in negotiation to sell the vehicles.
On September 16, 2015, SCM reported to the Plaintiff that neither car was available to be returned because it agreed to sell the Porsche Touring for £570,000 and the Porsche Lightweight for £700,000.
Bury returned the Porsche Touring to SCM on or about October 12, 2015. The next day, the Plaintiff obtained an order from a court in the United Kingdom requiring SCM to return possession of the Porsche motorcars to the Plaintiff. However, before the Plaintiff could enforce the order, Edwards removed the Porsche motorcars from SCM's premises and put them beyond the Plaintiff's reach.
SCM subsequently identified Edwards as the source of its early September 2015 understanding that an agreement to purchase the Porsche motorcars existed. The Plaintiff believes that the Kramer email was the basis for Edwards's false representations to SCM. Thus, the Plaintiff contends that the Defendant proximately caused the loss of the Porsche motorcars by materiallydelaying his efforts to recover them. The Plaintiff believes that these delays enabled Edwards to steal the Porsche motorcars from SCM before he could retrieve them.
On July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant, Edwards, and several other individuals, asserting violations of the RICO statute and common law claims for civil conspiracy, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, trespass to chattel, unjust enrichment, and accounting.
On November 17, 2017, the Defendant moved, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 56, for dismissal of this case due to the Plaintiff's failure to state a claim.
On December 15, 2017, the Court denied the Defendant's motion without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's Individual Rules requiring the exchange of Rule 56.1 statements and requesting a pre-motion conference with the Court prior to initiating summary judgment motion practice.
On March 20, 2018, the Court held a pre-motion conference in which it authorized the Defendant to move for summary judgment.
On April 9, 2018, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims against all defendants other than the Defendant.
On August 27, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. However, the memorandum of support filed in conjunction with the Defendant's motion also referenced the standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial