Goldstein v. Roxborough Real Estate, LLC, 110618 FED3, 18-1354

Docket Nº:18-1354
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN, Appellant v. ROXBOROUGH REAL ESTATE, LLC; BRENDA HOPKINS
Judge Panel:Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
Case Date:November 06, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

MICHAEL GOLDSTEIN, Appellant

v.

ROXBOROUGH REAL ESTATE, LLC; BRENDA HOPKINS

No. 18-1354

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

November 6, 2018

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) November 2, 2018

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 3-15-cv-03835) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan

Before: KRAUSE, SCIRICA and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

OPINION [*]

PER CURIAM

Michael Goldstein appeals pro se from the District Court's order granting judgment on the pleadings to the defendants. For the reasons detailed below, we will affirm the District Court's judgment.

In 2006, Goldstein and others formed four limited partnerships to purchase property in Philadelphia. Defendant Roxborough Real Estate, LLC (RRE) was the general partner and was responsible for managing the limited partnerships and their assets. Defendant Brenda Hopkins was an employee of RRE. According to Goldstein's complaint, in 2008, he audited RRE's accounting and discovered that the defendants had failed to keep accurate records and had grossly mismanaged the partnerships. Goldstein contends that this mismanagement forced the partnerships to abandon the properties to the lender banks and led to the partnerships' insolvency. Goldstein then assumed the role of general partner, obtained the interests of the non-defendant partners, and brought this action, raising claims of fraud, breach of contract, negligent supervision, detrimental reliance, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.

The District Court ruled that the parties were required to arbitrate the dispute and administratively terminated the matter. Goldstein appealed. We concluded that it was not clear whether Goldstein sought to proceed on his own behalf or on behalf of the partnerships, and thus remanded the matter to the District Court for further proceedings. See Goldstein v. Roxborough Real Estate LLC, 677 Fed.Appx. 796, 800 (3d Cir. 2017) (not precedential). On remand, the District Court granted judgment on the pleadings to the defendants, concluding that one of Goldstein's claims was...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP